Stefka Wechsler of global energy and commodity price reporting agency Argus Media on Friday (12 November) published a report on the fuel cost for shipowners shifting to biomethanol as an alternative marine fuel.
Shipowners switching to biomethanol as a marine fuel to curb CO2 emissions would face higher bunker bills at today’s prices, even after accounting for the added cost of CO2 life cycle emissions from very low-sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO).
Marine fuels sale and consumption are not subject to greenhouse gas restrictions or fees, but the EU has two proposals in the works that would change that.
One plan is to add maritime emissions to the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS), starting in 2023 with auctions for 20pc of CO2 emissions and gradually increasing to 100pc of CO2 emissions in 2026.
This proposal applies to emissions generated during fuel combustion. The second proposal is for vessels to reduce their GHG intensities, starting in 2025 with a 2pc reduction and gradually increasing to a 75pc reduction by 2050, from a 2020 baseline.
The proposal would apply to emissions generated during a fuel’s life cycle.
During its life cycle, one metric tonne (t) of VLSFO emits about 3.734t of CO2, according to a study by the nonprofit International Council on Clean Transportation. CO2 traded through the EU’s ETS averaged $70/t and Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) VLSFO averaged at $573/t from 1-12 November, according to Argus data.
Adding life cycle CO2 emissions cost to VLSFO would have increased its price to $833/t. By comparison, biomethanol, excluding CO2 life cycle emission cost, was pegged at $3,336/t in ARA average for the week ending 5 November, Argus data showed, four times higher than VLSFO with the added CO2 cost.
Biomethanol is produced from biomass and so creates fewer CO2 emissions than traditional methanol, which is produced from natural gas or coal.
Danish shipping company Maersk earlier this year said it is considering biomethanol as a way to reduce its CO2 emissions, in addition to considering lignin fuels, e-methanol, biodiesel and green ammonia. Fossil fuel-generated methanol in Rotterdam was assessed at $958/t average for the week ending on 5 November, Argus data showed, less than one-third of the price of biomethanol.
Unless biomethanol prices drop sharply in the 13-plus months until January 2023 when the ETS scheme could be implemented, it is unlikely that most ship owners will embrace burning biomethanol. Paying for CO2 emissions through EU’s ETS would be more cost effective than switching to biomethanol or fossil fuel-generated methanol at today’s prices.
Photo credit and source: Argus Media
Published: 15 November, 2021
Rotterdam’s intention to mandate the usage of MFMs goes down well with licensed bunker supplier VT Group; MFM providers supportive of move but stressed continuous monitoring is needed for optimum performance.
Cost of alternative bunker fuels, bunker operations and technology advancement are some considerations to be examined by the maritime industry, says Neo, director of SDE International Pte Ltd.
Kim Hyung Joon and Han Donghoon were planning to join the Singapore entities of Hartree Group - either Hartree Partners Singapore Pte Ltd or Hartree Marine Fuels - in October, discovered management.
‘When you think of Helmsman on the next occasion, think of us as lawyers with expertise in various fields. Come to us before a problem develops. It’s the process that matters,’ says Tang Chong Jun, Executive Director.
Bernard Chew was a former shareholder of MB Marine and was an authorised signatory of the company’s cheques at the material time, according to court documents obtained by Manifold Times.
Maersk, CMA CGM, BP and Stena Bulk give insights on availability of the three potential bunker fuel types, their plans, transition from fuel oil and LNG to alt fuels, how important sustainable marine fuels are to shipowners and more.