Alternative Fuels

2019 – A good year for LNG as marine fuel, says Wessel Marine

Generated savings for bunker costs (LNG versus MGO) of LNG-retrofitted Wes Amelie was approximately 2.750 EUR per day and almost one million EUR in 2019.

Published

6 years ago

January 15, 2020

Admin

Christian Peter Hoepfner, Managing Partner of Wessels Marine, on Monday (13 January) published an article examining the generated savings for bunker costs [liquefied natural gas (LNG) versus marine gas oil (MGO)] enjoyed by the LNG-retrofitted Wes Amelie in 2019:

Unifeeder, the operator of the LNG retrofitted Wes Amelie and first adopter of LNG as marine fuel in the European container feeder segment, must be quite satisfied with the bunker costs of the vessel in 2019.

MV Wes Amelie, a 1.000 TEU container feeder vessel converted to LNG operation in 2017, is operated in one of Unifeeder’s widely ramified feeder network in the North and Baltic Sea and frequently calling Rotterdam as its main port. From Rotterdam the vessel is passing the Kiel Canal and serving several ports in the Baltic. After each round voyage, which takes between 12-13 days, the vessel receives an average of 130 tons of LNG per bunkering. Since July last year LNG bunkring can be done ship-to-ship. So, on that particular service the vessel consumes an average of 10 tons per day and that consumption per day applies to the full year.

In 2019 the generated saving in bunker costs, LNG versus MGO, was approximately 2.750 EUR per day, almost one million EUR the year. And that does not include the extra savings generated due to rebated harbor dues. This saving potential makes the vessel quite attractive and explains, why the vessel is in her third consecutive time charter year with Unifeeder.

It’s quite simple, the bigger the price gap between LNG and low sulfur fuels are and the higher the consumption is, the better is the saving. The price for LNG was, on average, on the lower side in 2019. And this flat price scenario obviously remains in 2020. Today, January 12th, “usually” a cold season in the northern hemisphere, the TTF is extremely low with 11,80 EUR per mWh. Twelve days ago, the price gap in Rotterdam between a delivered ton of LNG and a ton of MGO was around 235,00 EUR, on an energy content basis the cost advantage was even apprx. 315,00 EUR.

LNG Traders are expecting similar price developments in 2020. With this outlook in combination to the tightened price development of low sulfur fuels under the sulfur cap year we might see promising price gaps between LNG and low sulfur fuels again in 2020.

Competitive prices, that is one of two important elements that the ongoing spread of LNG as marine fuel needs. And the price for LNG definitely is competitive to conventional fuels, even against heavy fuel oil. And the other element, which is the LNG bunker infrastructure, is developing quite dynamically with a number of orders placed.

A view into the order books of the shipbuilders around the globe shows, that LNG powered vessels are increasingly represented. That presently applies more to vessel segments which are predestined for the use of LNG, segments that are predominantly operating intra-regionally. We already see container feeder vessels, chemical tankers, cement carriers, ferries, cruise vessels, dredgers and even authority vessels that are using LNG as fuel. And globally operating vessels are following, the ULCC ‘CMA CGM Jacques Saade’ is quite an impressive example and even bigger bulkers are already using LNG.

At Wessels Marine we see a huge potential for further LNG powered vessels, predominantly in Europe with just a little time lapse of course also in Asia and the Americas. The LNG bunker infrastructure is the determining factor and presently Europe provides the highest coverage of LNG bunker opportunities, but other regions are catching up.

With remaining sustainably attractive on the price side, the necessary extra investment for the LNG propulsion can be amortized within a reasonable period. In Europe LNG as marine fuel has basically been established and with each new bunker vessel in place it becomes more and more attractive. Where scrubbers offer commercial advantages only, LNG adds to the commercial advantage a significant improvement to the environment and, even more important, opens the door to carbon neutral transportation, a goal we all should aim for.

Photo credit and source: Wessels Marine
Published: 15 January, 2020

LNG Bunkering

Chinese firms form pact for 20,000 cbm LNG bunkering vessel project

CM Energy Tech, Seacon Shipping Group and China Merchants Heavy Industry (Jiangsu) signed a joint venture agreement for 1+1 20,000 cubic meter LNG bunkering vessels.

Published

1 day ago

June 5, 2026

Admin

CM Energy Tech Co Ltd, Seacon Shipping Group Holdings Limited and China Merchants Heavy Industry (Jiangsu) Co Ltd on Tuesday (26 May) signed a joint venture agreement for the construction of 1+1 20,000 cubic meter liquefied natural gas (LNG) bunkering vessels.

The parties also signed a shipbuilding contract for the first vessel, which will be constructed by China Merchants Heavy Industry.

The project combines CM Energy Tech’s access to the China Merchants Group ecosystem, Seacon Shipping Group’s expertise in ship management and operations, and China Merchants Heavy Industry’s shipbuilding capabilities. The partners said the initiative is intended to address the shortage of large-capacity LNG bunkering vessels in the Chinese market.

The newbuild LNG bunkering vessel will feature dual C-type independent cargo tanks and is designed with a boil-off rate of just 0.16% per day. It will also be capable of delivering LNG at a bunkering rate of up to 2,000 cbm per hour, enabling efficient refuelling of large LNG-fuelled vessels.

The vessel will be powered by Wärtsilä dual-fuel engines and will comply with IMO Tier III emissions requirements. The first vessel is scheduled for delivery in 2028.

The three companies said they plan to further expand cooperation across the LNG value chain, strengthen their presence in the marine energy sector and provide customers with integrated LNG bunkering services focused on safety, operational efficiency and lower carbon emissions.

Photo credit: David Yu from Pixabay
Published: 5 June, 2026

Methanol

India’s Agastya inks green methanol offtake agreement with SAR Group

Agastya Green Fuels and SAR Group will work together to enable green methanol storage, bunkering, and marine fuel infrastructure across Sri Lanka.

Published

1 day ago

June 5, 2026

Admin

India’s clean energy conglomerate Agastya Group on Wednesday (3 June) said Agastya Green Fuels signed a long-term green methanol offtake agreement with Sri Lankan bunker supplier SAR Maritime Agencies, a SAR Group company, for the supply of 250,000 metric tonnes (mt) per annum of EU RFNBO RED III Compliant green methanol.

Agastya said the agreement establishes one of the largest green methanol supply partnerships in the Indian Ocean Region and marked a major step toward creating a new green maritime energy corridor connecting India and Sri Lanka.

The green methanol will be supplied from the Agastya Green Fuels Hub at Mulapeta Port, Andhra Pradesh, India, where Agastya is developing a green methanol export-oriented facility with a planned investment of USD 6 billion over the next six years. The facility is expected to produce 1 million mt per annum.

“Through this partnership, Agastya Green Fuels and SAR Group will work together to enable green methanol storage, bunkering, and marine fuel infrastructure across Sri Lanka, positioning Colombo, Hambantota, and Trincomalee as future clean-fuel hubs for global shipping,” the company said in a social media post.

“The Indian Ocean is emerging as the world’s next green fuel corridor. Agastya Green Fuels intends to be at its center,” said Shashi K Reddy Arjula, Founder and Group CEO of Agastya.

Photo credit: CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Published: 5 June, 2026

Alternative Fuels

DNV data shows shift in alternative-fuelled vessel ordering patterns

DNV says shipowners are adopting more varied fuel strategies, reflecting a growing emphasis on optionality, regulatory compliance and risk management in long-life vessel investments.

Published

1 day ago

June 5, 2026

Admin

DNV data shows shift in alternative-fuelled vessel ordering patterns

Latest data from classification society DNV’s Alternative Fuels Insight (AFI) platform showed a total of 36 new orders for alternative-fuelled vessels were placed in May 2026.

Activity was primarily driven by LPG/ethane carriers, which accounted for 26 of the orders. A further eight LNG-fuelled vessels were ordered, including six container vessels and two car carriers, alongside two ethanol-fuelled bulk carriers.

So far in 2026, a total of 119 orders have been placed for alternative-fuelled vessels. Of these, LNG-fuelled vessels (60) account for the largest share of the orderbook, with the majority of these (42) coming from the container segment, and a smaller share (12) from car carriers.

A further 50 orders have been placed for LPG/ethane carriers, while activity in other fuel types remains limited, with orders for methanol/ethanol (4), ammonia (4), and hydrogen (1).

By the end of May, the share of alternative-fuelled vessels in total tonnage was notably lower than over the same period in 2025.

DNV data shows shift in alternative-fuelled vessel ordering patterns

Jason Stefanatos, Global Decarbonization Director at DNV Maritime, said: “While the pace of alternative-fuelled contracting has varied compared to 2025, the industry continues to move forward in its transition, with owners advancing fuel and technology decisions against a backdrop of evolving regulatory and market conditions.

“As in previous years, ordering of alternative-fuelled vessels has been led by the container segment, but dynamics are shifting. While activity remains strong, the focus has moved towards smaller vessels, with fewer very large container ships, which are historically more likely to adopt alternative fuels, being ordered. At the same time, we are seeing increased activity in tanker and bulker segments.

“What is also becoming clearer is that fuel choice is no longer approached as a single bet. Owners are increasingly treating it as a portfolio decision, managing fuel optionality, timing of investment, and exposure to future regulation as they navigate long-life asset decisions.

“This is reflected in more varied ordering patterns, reinforcing that the transition is not progressing in a straight line.”

Photo credit: DNV
Published: 5 June, 2026