SCHIFFFAHRT | SHIPPING A
SCHIFFFAHRT | SHIPPING A whole new challenging multi-fuel world Ahead of the global aim of achieving zero carbon emissions by 2050, the international shipping industry continues to face challenges as players experiment with alternatives to fossil fuels. By Patrick Lee © MPA Singapore Singapore‘s first methanol bunker vessel »Maple« Methanol, especially the green type, is scarce, and shipping companies are building methanol-powered vessels to induce energy companies to produce methanol-based bunkers. X-Press Feeders, the largest liner operator, has chosen methanol as its decarbonisation solution, figuring that it is less pragmatic to build liquefied natural gas tanks in small vessels. At the recent expert conference Marine Fuels 360 in Singapore, shipping executives related how methanol and biofuels are the most commonly trialled alternatives, but there are difficulties. Alex Hartnoll, sustainability head at X-Press Feeders, said: »From our studies, in terms of LNG bunkering, you obviously need the infrastructure for that to work and that‘s fine if you‘re dealing with hub ports but if you‘re dealing with say, regional ports, small ports in Southeast Asia and Asia itself, your operations go far beyond that, you have other considerations. Methanol is more flexible in terms of being easy to implement.« However, uncertainties surround the ample availability of methanol. »In terms of availability and costs and who is going to pay for the premium, I believe biofuels can be sorted out« Goh Chung Hun – PIL Danish liner giant Maersk Line, which is also betting on methanol, already signed a deal with Chinese clean energy developer Goldwind, agreeing to an annual offtake of 500,000 t of green methanol, from 2026. Hartnoll said: »As an industry, it‘s kind of important to set standards. People aren‘t going to start making methanol if people don‘t build the ships. It‘s a bit of a gamble but we feel it‘s going to pay off.« Other companies, such as Ocean Network Express (ONE), Pacific International Lines (PIL) and mining giant Anglo American are experimenting with biofuels, as ship engines need not be retrofitted. However, biofuels cost twice as much as fossil fuels, as the feedstock, namely corn, soybeans and other vegetable oils, have other uses as food for people and livestock. There is also no common standard to gauge the carbon neutrality of biofuels. PIL’s general manager (fleet) Goh Chung Hun said that the Singapore-based liner operator’s existing ships are burning conventional fuel oil and biofuels are seen as »a very attractive option.« 36 HANSA – International Maritime Journal 02 | 2024
SCHIFFFAHRT | SHIPPING However, Goh added: »In terms of availability and costs and who is going to pay for the premium, I believe it can be sorted out.« Biofuels can also be difficult to authenticate if these contain fatty acids, said marine fuel testing specialist Veritas Petroleum Services’ president (strategic partnerships), Captain Rahul Choudhuri. Veritas, which was spun off from classification society Det Norske Veritas, is working with the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation to better authenticate biofuels. Choudhuri said: »Biofuel feedstock comes from a variety of sources including edible vegetable oils, animal fat, waste, and components; but how do you figure out what the feedstock really was?« He asserted that the bunkering supply chain is prone to fraud, and biofuels, when delivered through several parties, could be inconsistent when stemmed to the receiving ships. Choudhuri continued: »The proof of sustainability will become really tricky going ahead. However, trials have proven biofuels possess fatty acid chains that produce a unique profiling. If you think your feedstock should be palm-based and the fingerprint shows clearly that it is not – then that’s it – because the fingerprint just doesn‘t fail irrespective of which country the biofuel comes from.« Goh, is however, optimistic that the issues surrounding biofuels can be resolved: »There’re a few industrial standards (for biofuels) in place but whether one is accepted in another location, and vice versa, that remains to be seen. It’s a little bit fragmented at the moment but I’m sure, collectively, within the industry, that’s the obvious route that is seen. Biofuels are the option for existing ships and I’m sure we can achieve something together if we move towards that.« Richard Ho, deputy general manager (fuel) at ONE, which is also piloting biofuels, said that ship operators do not just choose fuel types on a whim, and then make the purchase. Ho said: »We engage our partners on the ship owners’ side to know what they want. We work with our labs to learn what are the new requirements. What can we do if the fuel fails? It’s not just about buying the fuel. The complexity increases multiple folds. We work with regulatory bodies to ensure we move things forward and be ahead of the game. It’s the whole ecosystem that helps us to be successful.« »People aren‘t going to start making methanol if people don‘t build the ships. It‘s a bit of a gamble« Alex Hartnoll from X-Press Feeders 200,000 t a year or 50,000 t a year, everybody gets an equal seat at the table. If you’re a smaller operator, you just don’t have access to that kind of information and you won’t be offered a contract even if you wanted to have one.« Operators have to think long-term Ho said that supply considerations mean that ship operators have to think long-term when buying alternative fuels. Previously, ONE’s legacy owners, Mitsui OSK Lines, NYK Line and ‘K’ Line, purchased conventional fuels three to six months ahead. The move from a single fuel to a multi-fuel world has changed that. Ho said: »We’re looking at a multi-year horizon to make sure we can procure a certain level of alternative fuels, whether it’s ammonia or methanol.« Meanwhile, liquefied natural gas (LNG) is still favoured as a transition fuel, said Shell’s global network development and strategy manager, Khoo Hwee Lan. She asserted that the oil major’s involvement in © Lee shipping is multi-fold, being a fuel supplier as well as an operator of oil tankers and LNG carriers. »We believe that biodiesel and renewable fuel will be the way to go. LNG is the lowest-carbon, lowest-cost fuel that is available at scale out there, so we start with that in the first instance. The LNG production capacity is around 450 mill. t today, and the receiving capacity is over 1 billion tonnes. So there’s a lot of LNG out there that’s available for shipping to decarbonise«, she said. Khoo alluded to the International Chamber of Shipping’s recent estimate that by the mid-2030s, 800,000 seafarers would need to be trained to handle ammonia, hydrogen and methanol. She said: »LNG is a fuel that has been used for the last 50, 60 years so it has an excellent track record.« Shell has delivered LNG as bunker fuel to customers on the largest container vessels to tugboats so we’ve done more than 300 ship-to-ship operations. That also shows it’s not difficult to train up the crew. Joining a bunker alliance? To address concerns about expensive alternative fuels, ship owners and operators should consider joining a bunker alliance, such as the one headed by BW Group’s products tanker arm Hafnia, which now procures marine fuels for 20 third-party members. Hafnia’s general manager (bunker) Kasper Sorensen, said the company purchases bunkers for 1,300 ships now. He asserted that such group buying can help smaller operators with substantially less fuel requirements than big players. Sorensen added: »To get a seat at the table, you need to have some sort of critical mass. For us, whether you buy a million tonnes a year, whether you buy © Port of Rotterdam Ellen« delivers green methanol in the port of Rotterdam or the first time to a Maersk newbuilding HANSA – International Maritime Journal 02 | 2024 37
