Connect with us

Environment

Clean Arctic Alliance calls out proposed Arctic shipping regulation to be full of loopholes

‘Proposed exemptions for ships with protected fuel tanks and waivers for Arctic coastal nations’ ships operating in their own waters, will fail to protect the Arctic,’ it said.

Admin

Published

on

Clean Arctic Alliance

Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition made of non-profit organisations (NGO), on Thursday (3 September) published an article confirming its findings within the IMO’s proposed Arctic shipping regulation to be full of dangerous loopholes and exemptions: 

Responding to the release of a new White Paper: The International Maritime Organization’s Proposed Arctic Heavy Fuel Oil Ban: Likely Impacts And Opportunities For Improvement by the International Council on Clean Transportation (iCCT), Clean Arctic Alliance Lead Advisor Dr Sian Prior said: “Now it’s clear the IMO’s proposed ban on HFO use in the Arctic is a ban in name only”.

“Not only is it outrageous that the proposed International Maritime Organization ban includes exemptions and waivers which, as this new report shows, would allow 84% of the HFO used by Arctic shipping to still be burned, and 70% of the current HFO fuel volume on board vessels in the Arctic to still be carried, but we are also concerned that the regulation could result in lower standards being applied to ships flying Arctic coastal State flags and greater risks in the vulnerable inshore waters that are most important for Indigenous communities.”

The ICCT paper finds that the initial implementation of a proposed International Maritime Organization ban on heavy fuel oil from Arctic shipping, along with proposed exemptions for ships with protected fuel tanks and waivers for Arctic coastal nations’ ships operating in their own waters, will fail to protect the Arctic by allowing “business as usual” for most shipping operators in the region, and could fuel a race towards lower safety standards,

“If an Arctic country can waive the ban for its own ships, but is required to enforce the ban for all ships flying other flags in their waters, an unlevel playing field will have been created. In addition, waiving the ban for its own ships could compromise an Arctic coastal country’s ability to ensure that activities under their control do not cause damage to the waters and environment of neighbouring countries, or that pollution does not spread to neighbouring countries.”

“In addition, since the exemptions apply to newer ships, the continued use and carriage of HFO in the Arctic is likely to increase after the ban takes effect, as older ships are removed from the fleet and newer ships with protected fuel tanks replace them. This is simply not good enough, it doesn’t provide the Arctic, its ecosystem, wildlife and communities with the protection it so desperately needs. The Clean Arctic Alliance is calling for the draft regulation to be strengthened and for exclusions and waivers to not be allowed.”

“We share the concerns of Arctic communities about the potential socioeconomic costs of banning the use and carriage of HFO in the Arctic, but believe that there are clear socio-economic benefits of eliminating HFO spills in the Arctic, so the Clean Arctic Alliance calls on national governments to support the transition from HFO to alternative fuels to mitigate any negative socio-economic impacts for northern communities.”

“The Climate Crisis is having a direct impact on the Arctic, and will have serious repercussions further south. With temperatures hitting 38 degrees Celcius north of the Arctic Circle in June, summer sea ice at its lowest extent ever through July and the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s Arctic coastline open in July for the first time ever, and scientists predicting summers with no sea ice by 2050, the Clean Arctic Alliance is calling on the International Maritime Organization to put in place an effective and credible ban on the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil from Arctic shipping”, said Prior.

Country Specific Findings

Russia

The ICCT Report reveals that Russian-flagged ships used 287 kt of HFO, representing about two-thirds of HFO used in the Arctic in 2019. Based on 2019 data, only 7 kt of Russian-flagged ships’ HFO use would be banned if the HFO ban regulation is adopted including exemptions and waivers – more than 97% of the current HFO use by Russian-flagged ships would still be allowed in the Arctic.

Denmark

The ICCT Report reveals that Danish-flagged ships used 16 kt of HFO, representing 4% of the total HFO used in the Arctic in 2019. Based on 2019 data, only 1 kt of Danish-flagged ships’ HFO use would be banned if the HFO ban regulation is adopted including exemptions and waivers – 94% of the current HFO use would still be allowed.

Canada

The ICCT Report reveals that Canadian-flagged ships used 15 kt of HFO, representing 3% of the total HFO used in the Arctic in 2019. Based on 2019 data, only 1 kt of Canadian-flagged ships’ use of HFO would be banned if the HFO ban regulation is adopted including exemptions and waivers – 93% of current HFO use would still be allowed.

Norway

The ICCT Report reveals that Norwegian-flagged ships used 1.5 kt of HFO, representing less than 1% of the total HFO used in the Arctic in 2019. Based on 2019 data, 0.6 kt of Norwegian-flagged ships’ HFO use would be banned if the HFO regulation is adopted including exemptions and waivers – 60% of current HFO use would still be allowed.

United States

The ICCT Report reveals that United States-flagged ships used less than 1 kt of HFO, representing less than 1% of the total HFO used in the Arctic in 2019. Based on the 2019 data, 0.6 kt of U.S.-flagged ships’ HFO use would be banned if the HFO regulation is adopted including exemptions and waivers – 30% of the current HFO use would still be allowed.


Photo credit and source:
Clean Arctic Alliance
Published: 4 September, 2020

 

Continue Reading

Biofuel

China conducts first dedicated marine biofuel spill response drill in Tangshan

Exercise simulated a leak of 10 metric tonnes of biodiesel from a vessel experiencing a spill during cargo operations at a terminal.

Admin

Published

on

By

China conducts first dedicated marine biofuel spill response drill in Tangshan

China’s Tangshan Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) on Thursday (10 September) conducted the country’s first dedicated emergency response exercise for a marine biofuel spill at Jingtang Port in Tangshan, Bohai Sea.

The “2026 Green Power Mission” exercise simulated a leak of 10 metric tonnes of biodiesel from a vessel experiencing a spill during cargo operations at a terminal. 

Following the incident report, the Tangshan MSA’s vessel traffic management centre activated its emergency response procedures, issued a navigation warning and established a traffic control area.

The maritime patrol vessel Haixun 04501 arrived at the scene to coordinate the response, involving a drone unit, an oil spill response vessel and terminal emergency personnel.

A drone equipped with fluorescence detection equipment was deployed to identify the contaminated area. Terminal personnel used oil recovery equipment, while response vessels deployed containment booms to limit the spread of the spill and spraying equipment to remove the surface oil film.

The exercise also trialled the use of 355-nanometre ultraviolet light combined with drone-mounted fluorescence detection equipment to locate biodiesel contamination.

The Tangshan MSA said unlike conventional fuel oil, biodiesel spill traces can be difficult to identify by eye under natural light. The fluorescence detection system can identify biodiesel’s characteristic fluorescence signal, enabling responders to determine the spill boundary and support subsequent containment and recovery operations.

While biodiesel is biodegradable and has a lower sulphur content than conventional fuel oil, its behaviour following a spill and the methods required to detect it differ from those used for conventional oil spills, the MSA said.

The exercise tested response procedures covering incident reporting, aerial monitoring, surface containment, spill recovery and residual pollution removal.

The Tangshan MSA said it will use the exercise to improve biofuel spill emergency response plans, specialist training and equipment development as part of its “Green Bohai Sea” initiative.

The authority will also strengthen pollution risk prevention and accident response capabilities for vessels using new and clean energy fuels, it said.

 

Photo credit: Tangshan Maritime Safety Administration
Published: 16 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Alternative Fuels

APPEC 2026: Panellists navigate maritime decarbonisation and alternative marine fuel strategies

Experts discuss maritime decarbonisation, emphasising global regulatory clarity, crew training, and collaborative strategies for adopting sustainable alternative marine fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

IMG 9319 MT

Panel members consisting of Singapore’s maritime and port regulator Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), legal firm Rajah & Tann, bunker trading firm Sing Fuels, and the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) discussed the complexities of maritime decarbonisation at APPEC 2026 on Thursday (10 September).

The panel Balancing the Bunker Fuel Mix on the Path to Decarbonization moderated by John Morley, Global Director, Crude and Fuel Oil Markets, S&P Global Energy explored the complex landscape of maritime decarbonisation, sanctions fragmentation, and the transition to alternative marine fuels in Singapore.

Panellists broadly agree regulatory clarity – particularly from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – is the single most critical enabler for large-scale investment, whilst highlighting regional fragmentation, crew competency gaps, and trade finance constraints pose significant near-term challenges.

Biofuels were seen as the most immediately scalable alternative marine fuel, with methanol and ammonia as longer-term prospects.

The following points were raised by panel members during discussion:

New Wei Siang, Director, Maritime Decarbonisation & Net-Zero Pathways, MPA, advocated for a global, IMO-led regulatory framework to guide shipping’s decarbonisation.

He believed regional patchwork regulations create unhelpful uncertainty, whereas a unified approach would be more helpful for long-term investment.

While acknowledging progress at recent IMO inter-sessional meetings held in September has been “slow but deliberate,” he remains focused on the upcoming MEPC 85 scheduled from November 30 to December 3, 2026.

To address the technical and safety challenges of new bunker fuels, he pointed out the MPA has established the Maritime Energy Training Facility (METF) to upskill crews on handling future marine fuels including methanol.

Furthermore, the MPA has launched ten green and digital shipping corridor partnerships to trial alternative fuels, exchange knowledge, and raise safety standards.

Mr New emphasised Singapore’s goal is to serve as a comprehensive maritime hub, balancing global regulatory engagement with practical, collaborative efforts to build competency for the future.

Nathanael Lin, Partner, Shipping & International Trade, Rajah & Tann Singapore, highlighted the significant legal and commercial challenges posed by regulatory fragmentation.

He argued regional environmental rules, such as those in the EU, force shipowners to make high-stakes gambles on trade routes and infrastructure until the IMO codifies standards into MARPOL Annex VI.

He also noted sanctions compliance has become dramatically more complex, with competing unilateral regimes replacing the previous era of UN consensus, creating immense operational risk for industry participants.

Furthermore, Mr Lin warned trade finance frameworks are currently ill-equipped to handle the complexities of blended alternative bunker fuels; he recommended banks to actively upskill their compliance functions to support the maritime energy transition.

Finally, he observed while claims regarding alternative marine fuels remained low due to the sophistication of early adopters, they will likely rise as adoption broadens. He also flagged the future migration of residual fuel demand as a critical, under-examined industry issue.

Juwita Setiawan, Trading Manager & New Fuels Lead, Sing Fuels, emphasised the energy transition has been making bunkering increasingly complex due to overlapping regulations.

She advocated for holistic voyage planning, where shipowners consider total emissions, costs, and marine fuel flexibility rather than evaluating port calls in isolation. She highlighted the critical role of high-quality data, fuel flexibility, including dual-fuel capabilities and fuel optimisation as essential tools for navigating the increasingly complex energy transition and supporting a practical pathway towards decarbonisation.

Regarding market structure, Ms Setiawan believed a symbiotic partnership between large integrated energy companies – which provide necessary capital and infrastructure – and agile, specialist suppliers is vital for success.

She identified biofuels and LNG as the most viable near-term maritime decarbonisation solutions, with methanol emerging as a mid-term option.

Ultimately, even though government incentives remain essential to help shipowners manage the high costs associated with adopting greener bunker fuels, regulatory clarity is the single most important factor to simplify market trading.

Looking ahead, she believes three things need to happen over the next three years:

  1. Clear and stable regulation – Shipowners and fuel suppliers need regulatory certainty and confidence to make long-term investments.
  2. Scale in supply and infrastructure – The industry needs to move beyond pilot projects towards reliable volumes, competitive pricing and stronger infrastructure across major bunkering hubs.
  3. Greater confidence in the fuels themselves – Common standards, proven technologies and reliable fuel performance will be essential to building trust and accelerating adoption.

“At Sing Fuels, we believe the transition is not about choosing one fuel for every vessel. It is about optimising the right fuel, at the right place, at the right cost, with the right emissions outcome – while keeping operational realities at the centre of the decision.

Siti Noraini Zaini, Regional Manager, Asia, IBIA, identified energy security and decarbonisation as objectives that need not be competing, noting that when energy security is under pressure, the immediate focus naturally shifts towards availability, reliability and affordability.

Over the longer term, however, a diversified marine fuel mix ultimately enhances industry resilience.

She stressed low carbon fuels alone is insufficient; shipowners need confidence that fuels will be available to meet the demand, where they are needed and at commercially manageable prices.

A critical focus for Ms Siti is the parallel development of standards. She warned the industry could not wait for the market to mature before establishing protocols. Standards for fuel quality measurement, green bunkering procedures, safety, and crew competency must be developed alongside the fuels themselves.

Looking ahead, she identified the upcoming MEPC 85 meeting as the industry’s primary regulatory watchpoint. Achieving clarity at the meeting is essential to enable the safe, financed, and commercially viable bunkering of new marine fuels, ensuring shipping’s decarbonisation transition remains both practical and sustainable.

 

Photo credit: S&P Global
Published: 14 September 2026

Continue Reading

Methanol

GENA Solutions: Total renewable and low-carbon methanol project pipeline increases from 61.8 to 62.2 Mt by 2032

Information shared by MI – the Global Methanol Alliance meant to assist the maritime industry in the adoption of methanol as a mainstream marine fuel heading into IMO 2030/2050.

Admin

Published

on

By

28 1

MI – the Global Methanol Alliance recently shared with Manifold Times the renewable and low-carbon methanol project pipeline August 2026 release produced by GENA Solutions Oy.

Information from the release is meant to provide the bunkering publication’s readers with insight on renewable methanol availability, and to assist the maritime industry in the adoption of methanol as a mainstream marine fuel heading into IMO 2030/2050.

Key takeaways from GENA’s August 2026 Methanol release are as follows:

  • As of the end of August 2026, GENA tracks 286 renewable and low carbon methanol projects, representing 62.2 Mt of capacity by 2032. This includes 25.1 Mt of e-methanol, 25.9 Mt of biomethanol, and 11.2 Mt of low carbon methanol capacity.
  • Two new projects were added to Project Navigator last month, while one frozen project was excluded. The project pipeline increased by 0.4 Mt month on month.
  • Four new offtake agreements were registered during August, including two biomethanol and two e-methanol agreements.
  • About 8% of the cumulative renewable methanol project pipeline capacity has reached FID so far, with another 11% at the FEED stage.
  • Considering the current uncertainty around regulatory developments and demand growth, GENA projects that renewable methanol capacity could reach 6 Mt to 12 Mt by 2031.

Note: The full article can be viewed here.

Renewable methanol project pipeline 4 Renewable methanol by feedstock 8 Renewable methanol by region 7 Project pipeline by status Methanol capacity scenarios

 

Photo credit: GENA Solutions
Published: 4 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending