US oil major ExxonMobil on Tuesday (23 June) said it has successfully supplied a B30 0.50% sulphur marine residual fuel blend (B30 VLSFO), made using fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) Distillation Residue, to Wallenius Wilhelmsen. 

The bio marine fuel blend was bunkered by the vehicle carrier Titus in Zeebrugge ahead of the sea trial, marking a significant milestone in ExxonMobil’s journey towards supplying the marine industry with lower GHG emission fuels. 

The B30 VLSFO fuel meets the RMG380 residual fuel oil classification and complies with ISO 8217:2017 with the exception of the bio blend component. It shares similar drop-in properties to a B30 VLSFO made with FAME produced from used cooking oil (UCOME). 

The fuel has the potential to reduce lifecycle GHG emissions compared to conventional fuels. 

Importantly, marine fuels made with FAME Distillation Residue have a major advantage over FAME itself, as there is currently no competition for this material from other transport sectors. 

Additionally, when compared to FAME in VLSFO blends, several key properties of the FAME Distillation Residue are closer to the VLSFO component, such as density and viscosity. This is beneficial as users will see a lower reduction in viscosity than that of a FAME in VLSFO blend, which makes it comparatively easier to handle onboard ships. Further, extensive lab testing has shown good compatibility between petroleum-based VLSFOs and this B30 VLSFO made with FAME Distillation Residue. 

The sea trial was successfully completed with no operational concerns. The B30 VLSFO batch was bunkered without issue. The onboard storage and handling of B30 VLSFO did not result in any filtration or purification issues. Engine performance remained stable, as confirmed by comparing key parameters recorded in the performance and condition monitoring reports before, during and after the trial. 

“This successful sea trial highlights a practical, cost-effective pathway for customers to reduce their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining operational performance. By leveraging FAME Distillation Residue, ExxonMobil can offer a drop-in solution that supports compliance with evolving EU regulations and helps operators advance their lower GHG emission goals confidence,” said Gideon Simmelink, Account Manager Marine Fuels, ExxonMobil. 

“Wallenius Wilhelmsen has a long-standing collaboration with ExxonMobil. This trial supports our efforts to assess new fuel options and advance our decarbonization ambitions,” said Kari Haugen, Senior Manager Energy Sourcing, Wallenius Wilhelmsen. 

Subject to regional availability, ExxonMobil offers a range of bio marine fuel blends (Bio VLSFO, Bio ULSFO, Bio MGO and Bio HSFO), which we have supplied into the ARA (Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp) region (VLSFO and USLFO), the UK (MGO and HSFO) and Singapore (VLSFO). 

These solutions are designed to help meet the diverse needs of the shipping industry while helping support GHG emission reductions. Always consult with engine manufacturers as OEMs may limit bio blend percentages or specific bio components for certain engine designs.

Photo credit: ExxonMobil
Published: 25 June, 2026

Ship operator G2 Ocean on Wednesday (24 June) said it has launched Emission Reduction Certificates, a new service enabling customers to reduce emissions associated with their transportation services.

The service allows cargo owners and transport buyers to reduce their emissions from transportation by purchasing verified emission reductions generated from the use of biofuel in G2 Ocean’s operations.

The service is available to any company with emissions from transportation (Scope 3). It does not require cargo to be transported on specific low-emission G2 Ocean voyages.

For most companies, emissions from shipping are classified as indirect emissions (Scope 3) and sit outside their direct control. Reducing these emissions requires collaboration across the value chain.

Emission Reduction Certificates use a book-and-claim model, enabling customers to invest in emission reductions linked directly to maritime transport and to account for them in their climate reporting. The revenue will be reinvested in new biofuel voyages, helping create a cost-sharing model for biofuel and narrowing the gap between biofuel and regular fuel.

“Supply chain decarbonisation requires practical solutions. With our new service, Emission Reduction Certificates, customers can take immediate action to reduce their transport emissions while supporting the increased use of lower-emission fuels,” says Arthur English, Chief Executive Officer at G2 Ocean.

The emission reductions come from the use of certified biofuels on G2 Ocean voyages. They are verified and documented before being issued as digital certificates in a blockchain-connected registry. This registry tracks ownership and establishes a clear chain of custody for each certificate, ensuring that every certificate is unique and not double-counted or double-claimed.

“The certificates can be purchased and used by any company with emissions from transportation. The verified reductions are supported by audit documentation that enables credible climate reporting and emission accounting,” says Sigrid Bakken, ESG and Communications Director at G2 Ocean.

This ensures transparency, traceability and safeguards against double counting, providing customers with credible claims for decision-making, reporting and stakeholder communication.

Photo credit: G2 Ocean
Published: 25 June, 2026

Recent market volatility, geopolitical disruption and tightening carbon regulations are challenging the perception that conventional fuels offer the safest path for shipowners. 

Jesper Sørensen, Global Head of Alternative Fuels and Carbon Markets of KPI OceanConnect, shared with Singapore-based bunkering publication Manifold Times how changing market dynamics are reshaping the commercial case for alternative fuels and highlighting the value of fuel flexibility in an increasingly uncertain environment:  

For years the case for conventional bunker fuels has rested, in part, on familiarity. Owners know how to procure it, use it and build voyage economics around it. Alternative fuels, by contrast, have required a leap of faith – underdeveloped supply chains, high costs and a siloed regulatory backdrop. It’s a familiar tension for many ship owners where the scales have consistently favoured conventional fuels. It was, after all, the safe, known pathway while the green transition matures at its own pace.

Recent market conditions, however, have shown that conventional fuels carry their own version of uncertainty, one that is easy to underestimate in quieter times. Since the Iran War began at the end of February, export terminals across Iraq, Oman, Bahrain and the UAE came under threat and were struck or evacuated within days of each other. The Strait of Hormuz, which carries around a fifth of global oil, has been effectively closed for over a month. Over this time, Brent crude – the global oil benchmark – has traded across a $46 range, between $73 and $119. ICE Gasoil front-month swung more than $400 per tonne in a fortnight. LSMGO briefly disappeared from the Singapore spot market. This is the broader market context every owner has been navigating. It is a difficult environment by any measure but is worth pausing on, because it also changes the conversation around alternative fuels.

Biofuel and methanol markets were also affected. But they moved within a materially narrower range and were largely decoupled from the specific geopolitical shocks driving conventional supply disruption. This meant that the spread between alternatives and conventional fuel narrowed considerably. When EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime compliance costs are also factored in, that spread reduced further still, to the point where alternatives have looked competitive on an all-in basis during this time. That is a different commercial conversation from the one the industry was having even six months ago.

Across the supply chain, the consistent feedback from suppliers, traders and charterers is that the window to lock in biofuel or methanol on terms more favourable than any point in the past eighteen months remains open. Disruption and uncertainty are likely to affect the conventional fuel market for many months after the conflict is resolved – indeed the longer disruption continues, the longer the post-conflict recovery will take – and yet most owners have not seized the biofuel opportunity open to them. 

LNG also warrants attention as the alternative fuel with the deepest fleet commitment. Disruption to Qatari export infrastructure is a significant setback, with a recovery timeline that will be measured in years rather than months. This equation is balanced however, by significant new US export capacity coming online in 2026 and 2027, which will help rebalance availability for European and Asian buyers. The harm done to LNG users highlights an issue that is less about LNG specifically and more broadly about resilience and independence from any single fuel source. Owners with flexibility across fuel types – LNG alongside biofuels, methanol and conventional – will be better equipped to absorb supply shocks wherever they arise.

New fuels are initially expensive, but as production scales, supply chains mature and regulation creates demand certainty prices can be expected to come down. We have watched this curve play out in solar power, in batteries and in biofuels for road transport. Marine alternative fuels are at an earlier stage of the same pathway, but the direction of travel is unambiguous. Today’s premiums reflect a market in its early stages of development, not the cost of a system at scale.

Carbon regulation in the maritime industry has advanced quickly, and while it faces fragmentation and disruption, it warrants attention. Under EU frameworks carbon compliance is no longer a future liability, but a direct cash cost to be settled annually, drawn from the same credit lines that fund bunker procurement and working capital. Managing that cost actively, through alternative fuel procurement during periods of narrow spreads, can have a direct impact on the carbon procurement bill. Active management will free up credit capacity and, in many cases, convert a compliance liability into a surplus that can be traded through FuelEU Maritime pooling. Finance teams need to appreciate this strong commercial argument for pursuing the energy transition now.

Carbon regulation by the International Maritime Organization determines prevailing and future conditions of global regulation, so the meaningful technical progress made at MEPC 84 has provided a clearer sense of where the international framework is heading. Technical work on fuel certification, GFI methodologies and reward mechanisms moved forward, and a broad majority of member states signalled support for the Net-Zero Framework as a foundation. But the Net-Zero Fund remains undefined, key elements of energy efficiency regulation have been delayed and further negotiation is inevitable. In the meantime, the EU’s regime is already in effect. Any owner with regular port calls in Europe is operating inside a binding compliance system today, whatever the longer-term international system looks like.

Looked at this holistically, current conditions remind us that certainty is an illusion. No single fuel can be taken for granted and global regulation that would bring simplicity and clarity for the industry is years away. The owners best positioned to navigate today’s environment are those building genuine flexibility into their fuel strategy, spreading exposure across technologies, supply sources and compliance pathways. The conditions to start doing that, or to go further than they already have, are as favourable now as they have ever been.

Photo credit: KPI OceanConnect
Published: 25 June, 2026