Marine fuel trading firm Shipergy has signed a multi-year bunker procurement agreement with a European shipowner and operator that it says is the first in the industry to be based on energy delivered rather than the tonnage of fuel supplied, according to Ship & Bunker.
Under the deal, performance is benchmarked in dollars per gigajoule ($/GJ) instead of the conventional dollars per metric tonne ($/mt), Shipergy said in an emailed statement reported by Ship & Bunker. Reference energy values for the contract will be drawn from the company’s own Energy Beacon service, a tool designed to give buyers a ranked comparison of supplier energy content.
How the Pricing Model Works
According to Ship & Bunker, Shipergy explained that each quarter its achieved cost of energy delivered—calculated from actual invoice values and laboratory-measured Net Calorific Value on every delivery—will be compared against an energy-adjusted market benchmark. Where Shipergy demonstrates a saving against that benchmark, the benefit will be split between the buyer and supplier through a gain-share mechanism.
The company said this structure aligns the interests of both parties for the first time in bunker procurement. The first stem under the new contract, an MGO delivery at a Northwest European hub, was completed earlier this month, Ship & Bunker reported.
Company Rationale
Daniel Rose, CEO of Shipergy, was quoted by Ship & Bunker as saying that while the market prices fuel in dollars per tonne, vessels actually run on energy rather than tonnage. He noted that two cargoes priced identically can differ by five percent or more in the energy they deliver, a discrepancy he said no procurement contract had previously accounted for.
Rose added that Shipergy will now be measured and rewarded based on the true cost of energy delivered to the ship, and stated his belief that every fleet will adopt this purchasing approach within a decade, according to the report.
Does This Matter to You?
Fuel procurement based on energy content rather than tonnage could shift how contracts are structured across the bunkering supply chain, particularly for parties negotiating multi-year fuel agreements. Since Ship & Bunker notes that identical-priced cargoes can vary meaningfully in delivered energy, this model may prompt closer scrutiny of Net Calorific Value data and supplier benchmarking tools industry-wide.
The source material does not detail how widely this pricing structure might be adopted beyond the initial contract, so the broader market impact remains unclear at this stage.
Gulf Bunkering does not provide operational or security guidance. This article is for informational purposes only. Operators should consult flag state authorities, P&I clubs, and relevant advisories for decisions relating to transit planning.
Sources: Ship & Bunker
