미국의 벙커 연료 : 시장 점유율 분석, 업계 동향 및 통계, 성장 예측(2026-2031년)

According to Mordor Intelligence, the united states bunker fuel market size in terms of nameplate capacity was valued at 18.24 million tons in 2025 and is estimated to grow from 18.87 million tons in 2026 to reach 21.46 million tons by 2031, at a CAGR of 2.61% during the forecast period (2026-2031).

This report is Segmented by Fuel Type (HSFO, VLSFO, ULSFO, MGO, LNG, Methanol, Bio-/Synthetic Fuels, Ammonia, and More), Bunkering Method (Ship-To-Ship, Port-To-Ship, LNG Barge-To-Ship, and Portable Tanks and Containers), and Vessel Type (Container, Tanker, Bulk Carrier, General Cargo, Passenger/Ro-Pax, and Offshore and Specialized). The Market Sizes and Forecasts are Provided in Terms of Volume (MT)

United States Bunker Fuel Market Trends and Insights

IMO 2020 sulfur-cap compliance surge

Refinery configuration gaps on the East Coast forced supply realignment toward Gulf plants that possess residue-upgrading hardware, creating longer lead times for spot purchases. The narrowing HSFO-VLSFO spread, now near USD 50 per metric ton, has erased the investment case for new scrubber retrofits, locking more operators into compliant fuels. Scrubber-equipped vessels already on the water continue to consume HSFO, but stricter wash-water restrictions in California and Connecticut are curbing open-loop systems and reducing geographic flexibility. Detentions for sulfur violations rose 18% in 2025 as U.S. Coast Guard inspectors intensified sampling at major container and tanker gateways. Collectively, these factors stabilize the compliance premium that underpins VLSFO demand inside the United States bunker fuel market.

Expansion of U.S. LNG Bunkering Infrastructure

Federal and state grants exceeding USD 65 million have catalyzed groundbreaking for shore-based LNG facilities at Los Angeles and Jacksonville, supporting dual-fuel container and cruise tonnage arriving from 2026 onward. Houston Ship Channel suppliers exploit existing liquefaction terminals for offshore ship-to-ship transfers, shaving 15% from delivered LNG costs relative to barge deliveries. The first 12,000-cubic-meter Jones Act-compliant LNG bunker barge entered service at Jacksonville in March 2025 and cut fueling time by 40%, setting a new benchmark for coastal efficiency. Methane-slip concerns prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to propose on-engine monitoring that could add USD 0.5 million to newbuilds, but OEMs are rolling out closed-loop combustion systems that claim 70% slip reduction. Early LNG adoption by Carnival Corporation and Royal Caribbean for twelve forthcoming cruise ships secures a demand anchor that de-risks additional infrastructure commitments.

High Capital Cost of LNG Bunkering Assets

Purpose-built LNG barges cost USD 40-60 million while shore installations exceed USD 80 million, capital levels that smaller ports struggle to underwrite without volume certainty. Only three Jones Act-compliant LNG barges were in service by early 2026, creating supply gaps on coastal trades and forcing truck-to-ship transfers that inflate delivered prices by up to 30%. Financing terms have tightened as lenders factor in ammonia and hydrogen disruption risk, pushing equity requirements above 40% and hurdle rates toward 15%. Houston deferred a USD 90 million LNG terminal in late 2025 over demand uncertainty, signaling continued caution among port authorities. Until more long-term offtake contracts materialize, LNG infrastructure growth outside core hubs will lag broader market needs.

Other drivers and restraints analyzed in the detailed report include:

1. Growing U.S. Tanker and Container Traffic
2. Renewable Bio-Blend Bunkers Driven by California LCFS
3. Crude-Price Volatility Impacting Fuel Economics

For complete list of drivers and restraints, kindly check the Table Of Contents.

Segment Analysis

VLSFO accounted for 40.63% of the United States bunker fuel market size in 2025, anchoring compliance demand for the broader fleet. LNG is forecast to expand at 9.1% annually, supported by dual-fuel newbuild deliveries and three new bunker barges scheduled before 2028, giving operators a viable pathway to meet 2030 emissions targets. MGO and ULSFO retain niche roles among offshore support vessels where engine simplicity outweighs the cost premium. HSFO demand has stabilized around scrubber-equipped tankers and bulk carriers but faces geographic shrinkage as coastal discharge rules tighten. Methanol and ammonia remain pre-commercial yet have more than USD 3 billion in announced capacity along the Gulf Coast, signaling a potential reshuffling of the United States bunker fuel market landscape after 2028.

LNG's energy-density disadvantage is partially offset by lower delivered costs linked to abundant domestic gas. VLSFO growth is slowing as owners weigh long-term carbon liability against short-term capital flexibility, a tension likely to define fleet-wide procurement through the forecast horizon. Green methanol gains credibility following Maersk's 200,000-metric-ton offtake deal, which sets a pricing benchmark for additional contracts. Bio-blends qualify for LCFS credits that subsidize a competitive delivered cost on the West Coast, yet feedstock scarcity caps immediate volume. The multi-fuel reality underscores the need for suppliers to maintain diversified fuel portfolios within the United States bunker fuel market.

Complete Report Scope:

• By Fuel Type
  • High-Sulfur Fuel Oil (HSFO)
  • Very-Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil (VLSFO)
  • Ultra-Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil (ULSFO)
  • Marine Gas Oil (MGO)
  • Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
  • Methanol
  • Bio-/Synthetic Fuels
  • Ammonia
  • Other Fuel Types
• By Bunkering Method
  • Ship-to-Ship
  • Port-to-Ship (Truck/Pipeline)
  • LNG Barge-to-Ship
  • Portable Tanks and Containers
• By Vessel Type
  • Container
  • Tanker
  • Bulk Carrier
  • General Cargo
  • Passenger/Ro-Pax
  • Offshore and Specialized

List of Companies Covered in this Report:

1. Exxon Mobil Corporation
2. Shell Plc
3. Chevron Corporation
4. BP Plc
5. TotalEnergies SE
6. World Fuel Services Corp.
7. NUStar Energy L.P.
8. Phillips 66
9. Marathon Petroleum Corp.
10. Valero Energy Corp.
11. Trafigura Group Pte. Ltd.
12. Glencore Plc
13. Peninsula Petroleum
14. Crowley Maritime Corp.
15. Seacor Holdings
16. Kinder Morgan Inc.
17. Global Gas & Oil Trading LLC
18. Clipper Oil
19. Sprague Operating Resources
20. Pilot Thomas Logistics

Additional Benefits:

• The market estimate (ME) sheet in Excel format
• 3 months of analyst support

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction

• 1.1 Study Assumptions & Market Definition
• 1.2 Scope of the Study

2 Research Methodology

3 Executive Summary

4 Market Landscape

• 4.1 Market Overview
• 4.2 Market Drivers
  • 4.2.1 IMO 2020 sulfur-cap compliance surge
  • 4.2.2 Expansion of U.S. LNG bunkering infrastructure
  • 4.2.3 Growing U.S. tanker & container traffic
  • 4.2.4 Cruise-line demand for low-sulfur fuels
  • 4.2.5 Renewable bio-blend bunkers driven by California LCFS
  • 4.2.6 IRA tax credits catalyzing green-methanol supply
• 4.3 Market Restraints
  • 4.3.1 High capital cost of LNG bunkering assets
  • 4.3.2 Crude-price volatility impacting fuel economics
  • 4.3.3 Retrofit scrubbers reducing LS-fuel consumption
  • 4.3.4 Prospective carbon-levy shifting investment away
• 4.4 Supply-Chain Analysis
• 4.5 Regulatory Landscape
• 4.6 Technological Outlook
• 4.7 Porter's Five Forces
  • 4.7.1 Threat of New Entrants
  • 4.7.2 Bargaining Power of Suppliers
  • 4.7.3 Bargaining Power of Buyers
  • 4.7.4 Threat of Substitutes
  • 4.7.5 Competitive Rivalry
• 4.8 PESTLE Analysis

5 Market Size & Growth Forecasts

• 5.1 By Fuel Type
  • 5.1.1 High-Sulfur Fuel Oil (HSFO)
  • 5.1.2 Very-Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil (VLSFO)
  • 5.1.3 Ultra-Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil (ULSFO)
  • 5.1.4 Marine Gas Oil (MGO)
  • 5.1.5 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
  • 5.1.6 Methanol
  • 5.1.7 Bio-/Synthetic Fuels
  • 5.1.8 Ammonia
  • 5.1.9 Other Fuel Types
• 5.2 By Bunkering Method
  • 5.2.1 Ship-to-Ship
  • 5.2.2 Port-to-Ship (Truck/Pipeline)
  • 5.2.3 LNG Barge-to-Ship
  • 5.2.4 Portable Tanks and Containers
• 5.3 By Vessel Type
  • 5.3.1 Container
  • 5.3.2 Tanker
  • 5.3.3 Bulk Carrier
  • 5.3.4 General Cargo
  • 5.3.5 Passenger/Ro-Pax
  • 5.3.6 Offshore and Specialized

6 Competitive Landscape

• 6.1 Market Concentration
• 6.2 Strategic Moves (M&A, Partnerships, PPAs)
• 6.3 Market Share Analysis (Market Rank/Share for key companies)
• 6.4 Company Profiles (includes Global level Overview, Market level overview, Core Segments, Financials as available, Strategic Information, Products & Services, and Recent Developments)
  • 6.4.1 Exxon Mobil Corporation
  • 6.4.2 Shell Plc
  • 6.4.3 Chevron Corporation
  • 6.4.4 BP Plc
  • 6.4.5 TotalEnergies SE
  • 6.4.6 World Fuel Services Corp.
  • 6.4.7 NuStar Energy L.P.
  • 6.4.8 Phillips 66
  • 6.4.9 Marathon Petroleum Corp.
  • 6.4.10 Valero Energy Corp.
  • 6.4.11 Trafigura Group Pte. Ltd.
  • 6.4.12 Glencore Plc
  • 6.4.13 Peninsula Petroleum
  • 6.4.14 Crowley Maritime Corp.
  • 6.4.15 Seacor Holdings
  • 6.4.16 Kinder Morgan Inc.
  • 6.4.17 Global Gas & Oil Trading LLC
  • 6.4.18 Clipper Oil
  • 6.4.19 Sprague Operating Resources
  • 6.4.20 Pilot Thomas Logistics

7 Market Opportunities & Future Outlook

• 7.1 White-space & Unmet-need Assessment