SCHIFFSTECHNIK | SHIP
SCHIFFSTECHNIK | SHIP TECHNOLOGYbe problematic, and compared those levels to LNG. The LNGfueledtanker served as the model for the comparison, showing astark contrast between the two fuels. »LNG becomes dangerous ataround 50,000 parts per million (ppm), while ammonia starts tohave health effects above 30 ppm when permanently exposed, oraround 300 ppm when exposed for one hour«, they said.Based on this, BV noted that unless modifications are made todesign, safety distances should be much greater for ammonia thanLNG. This confirmed the approach outlined in BV’s NR 671, whichincludes more stringent leak management on-board and vapor gasprocessing to avoid even small leaks reaching manned areas.Laurent Leblanc, Senior Vice President Technical & Operationsat Bureau Veritas, commented: »While further experimentationand analysis are required to reach definitive conclusions,this preliminary study helped identify future areas to explore forde-risking ammonia as fuel. Additional tests could be performedfor leak design scenarios, bunkering safety zones, bunkering arrangements,and the effect of weather conditions, for example.«Until technology developments can eliminate ammonia leakscompletely, he added, leak mitigation and treatment remain thebest course of action for ship owners and designers.What will be the role of ammonia in future shipping?within bunkering scenarios, such as leaks or loss of containment,LNG and hydrogen held »broadly acceptable« risk scores.© Mariko»Methanol poses least overall risk«In another initiative, »Together in Safety«, a non-regulatory shippingindustry safety consortium, initiated the »Future Fuels RiskAssessment«, a cross-industry study with nine partners to evaluatepotential operational risks of LNG, methanol, hydrogen andammonia. The partner think, the industry must pro-actively developstandard safeguards and control measures for the deploymentof future fuels.The »Future Fuels Risk Assessment« study partners include APMTerminals, Carnival Corp, Chevron, Euronav, Lloyd’s Register,Maersk, MSC Ship Management, the Oil Companies InternationalMarine Forum (OCIMF) and Shell. The collaborative study, whichinvolved a series of hazard identification (HAZID) workshopsacross a set of operational scenarios based on a standard tanker design,found that of the four fuels reviewed, methanol poses the leastoverall risk, followed by LNG, hydrogen and ammonia.The HAZID risk ratings of the fuels were assessed from a seriesof »What if« scenarios within four categories: navigation, externalevents, ship operations and bunkering.Methanol scored the lowest risk ratings within navigationrelatedscenarios, such as loss of manoeuvrability, excessive motionsor a black-out at sea, as well as in scenarios related to shipoperations (other than bunkering), notably cargo operations incase of damage to equipment or vent mast and crew changes duringvessel handovers. Methanol also scored the lowest – what thepartner describe as »broadly acceptable« – risk ranking in the externalevent scenario of hull breach from ship collision. However,LNG and hydrogen nearly identicalBoth LNG and hydrogen scored nearly identical risk rankings inall scenarios studied by the HAZID team, with none falling withinthe »intolerable risk« domain. LNG fared better than hydrogenin one navigation scenario of vessel abandonment due to loss oftank pressure control, tank breach or loss of propulsion. »Itshould also be noted that there are well established internationalregulations for the use of LNG as fuel on board ships, whereas forhydrogen, no such regulations or guidance are available for eitherits usage as fuel or storage in the marine environment«, it wassaid. For the purpose of the study, the HAZID team only consideredcryogenic liquid hydrogen.Across all the fuels there are several medium risk ratings acceptedas »tolerable«, but the study indicated that efforts must ensurethat risks are reduced to »as low as reasonably practicable«.Ammonia scored »broadly acceptable« risk as a potentialsource of ignition in the scenario of tug support or third-partyvessel attendance at sea. However, some risks for ammonia as afuel are classified as high (or »intolerable«) in navigation scenarioslike grounding or collision leading to a hull breach, cargooperations in case of damage to equipment or vent mast, andleaks or loss of containment during bunkering.Focus on seafarersTo bring these hazards down to medium or a low-risk ratings,the study offers recommendations for ammonia usage. These12 3 4AB info@shipdesign.dewww.shipdesign.deREADYHANSA – International Maritime Journal 08 | 202251
SCHIFFSTECHNIK | SHIP TECHNOLOGYIn the meantime, the Methanol Institutefurther advocates for the namesake fueloption: »Methanol as a commercially andtechnically viable marine fuel is gaininggreater traction over other alternativebunkers, including LNG, as moreshipowners adopt the clean burning fuelas price spreads narrow and productionramps up«, it emphasizes.Greg Dolan, CEO of the Institute, atrade body whose shipowner membersinclude Maersk, Stena Bulk, MSC, MOLand Oldendorff Carriers, predicts thatmethanol production costs will fall to becomemore competitively priced thantraditional diesel bunker and other alternativefuels. Dolan suggested that themove to methanol would also helpshipowners avoid the proposed carbontax on diesel.»There’s a call by many including theworld‘s largest shippers for a carbon taxon diesel fuels. That would dramaticallychange the pricing picture for marinefuels and the only available alternativefuel options today are advanced biofuels,LNG and methanol,« he said, adding thatwhile LNG paved the way for methanol,methanol adoption can be a model forammonia and hydrogen in the future.According to Dolan, methanol productionincreased last year to 100 Mmt,doubling production in a decade. He saidproduction could reach 500 Mmt by2050, as predicted in a joint Methanol Institute/InternationalRenewable EnergyAgency report released earlier this year.Commenting on those shipowners thathave already announced plans to includemethanol within their fuel pool, Dolansaid that first movers, such as Maersk,understand »there is little time left to waiton potential solutions that might fulfil100 % of their 2050 goals. They know wedon‘t have 30 years to wait.«Stena and Proman are engaged in methanol transport and dual-fuel enginesinclude safety equipment for seafarers ifthere is a risk of gas pocket formation;dedicated emergency training for crewon fuel system safety devices and mitigatingdamage to fuel system scenarios;and guidelines on fuel system designsthat mitigate risks from grounding orcollisions.»Together in Safety« was establishedthree years ago with the principal objectiveto protect seafarers’ lives, whiledelivering improved business efficiencyand commercial effectiveness. GrahaemeHenderson, Chair of ’Together in Safety’said: »As the shipping industry safety coalition,›Together in Safety‹ represents anew approach with shipping industrygroups, companies and service providers,working in collaboration by combiningtheir collective knowledge and expertiseon challenges for the benefit of all. Thisreport is of significant importance to theindustry and also individual companieswho are making decisions on the futurefuels, to understand the hazards and potentialrisk mitigations.«Nick Brown, CEO, Lloyd’s Registersaid: »This report by ‘Together in Safety’illustrates how detailed and holistic riskassessments can identify and focus attentionon the solutions needed for thesafe use of alternative fuels.«Bud Darr, Executive Vice President,Maritime Policy at the leading containerliner company and cruise ship operatorMSC Group added: »Without the safetyissues being thoroughly identified andproperly addressed, we will not reach theend state we need. Safety and net zeroGHG operations must go hand-in-handin a world powered by future fuels at sea.«He said MSC will continue to work withthe industry to further identify new waysto mitigate risk levels in zero carbon fuelsthrough elimination, substitution, orcontrol in future study projects.Plea for methanol© Proman Stena Bulk»Availabe in 122 ports«Maersk announced in March that its firstmethanol-burning vessel will launch in2023, seven years ahead of schedule. Anotheradvocate is Proman Stena Bulk. Thejoint venture between shipowner StenaBulk and methanol producer Proman isplanning to build six 50,000 dwt tankerswith methanol dual-fuel engines for deliveryin 2023. A further three vesselsowned solely by Proman, scheduled fordelivery in 2022 and 2023, will be tradedglobally for shipping chemicals and cleanpetroleum products. Anita Gajadhar, ManagingDirector Proman Marketing, Logisticsand Shipping, said: »For us, methanolis a proven fuel capable of meeting theshipping industry’s carbon reduction targets.When you look at the long-termpricing, it is competitive when comparedto alternatives, like MGO. It is easy tobunker, it is safe to bunker, and it is widelyavailable as bunker in 122 ports.«Cheaper than LNG newbuildsMethanol-fuelled newbuilds also cost lessthan a LNG-burning ship, according toengine builders MAN Energy Solutionsand Wärtsilä. Kjeld Aabo, Director NewTechnologies two-stroke promotion,MAN Energy Solutions, says that a54,300 m 3 capacity product tanker runninga methanol-fuelled engine wouldadd about 10 % to the newbuild price.The same vessel running on LNG wouldcost 22 % more than a conventionalHFO-burning ship.Finnish manufacturer Wärtsilä introduceda methanol engine in 2013. ToniStojcevski, General Manager, ProjectSales & Development, reveals that the enginebuilder expects to have an ammonia-fuelledengine operating next yearand a pure hydrogen engine in 2025. Thecompany also plans to launch a new methanol-burningengine based on its provenW32 series in late 2023. This will beavailable for newbuilds and retrofit. MM52 HANSA – International Maritime Journal 08 | 2022
