Classification society Lloyd’s Register (LR) on Thursday (12 June) claim UK-based bunker operator John H. Whitaker (Tankers) Limited’s bunker tanker Whitchampion has become the first in the industry to load, carry and blend Fatty Acid Methyl Esters (FAME B100) onboard under IBC Code and MARPOL Annex II regulations.

The development occurred after LR issued a chemical certification to allow Whitchampion to perform onboard blending of biofuels with petroleum distillates and residual fuel oils. The operation is authorised within UK coastal waters under a Tri-Partite Agreement between the Isle of Man Flag and the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (UKMCA).

A second Whitaker tanker, Whitchallenger, will be undergoing a similar approval process and is expected to be certified later this year.

At present, bunker tankers certified under MARPOL Annex I are limited to carrying blends no more than 30% FAME under IMO regulations. Oil Fuels with higher bio-content fall under International Bulk Chemical Code (IBC Code) and MARPOL Annex II, typically requiring full chemical tanker status. That regulation has, in effect, frozen out a significant portion of the conventional bunker tanker fleet from supporting mid-to-high-range biofuel blending.

Whitaker’s Whitchampion is the first LR-classed vessel to bridge that gap. Through comprehensive Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment against the IBC Code and MARPOL Annex II requirements, LR developed an approach which involved mitigation of the assessed risks. This led to obtaining waivers/exemptions from the Flag Administration allowing this Annex I bunker tanker to gain chemical certification to carry FAME as cargo, without needing to convert to full chemical tanker status.

The successful delivery of dedicated onboard training on the safe handling of FAME has also led to UKMCA approval and a FAME Restricted endorsement to the existing Oil Tanker Dangerous Cargo Endorsement (DCE) for the crew.

Tim Wilson, Principal Specialist Fuels and Emissions, LR, said: “This certification demonstrates a credible and commercially viable route for existing bunker tankers to participate in the energy transition. It sets a clear blueprint for others to follow, enabling owners to consider the possibility of adapting existing bunker tankers for sustainable fuel delivery without resorting to prohibitively expensive conversions or replacement with a chemical tanker.”

Peter Howard, Technical Director at Whitaker Tankers, added: “This certification is the result of focused determination from all involved and underlines Whitaker’s commitment to providing clients with the flexibility they need to meet their decarbonisation goals. We’re proud to lead the way in this space with Whitchampion and look forward to progressing a similar certification with LR for her sister ship Whitchallenger later this year.”

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 13 June 2025

The Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD) on Wednesday (11 June) said a survey found 77% of shipowners and operators now consider achieving net zero a high priority in their strategy, up from 73% two years ago.

This was among the findings of the second edition of the Global Maritime Decarbonisation Survey, jointly conducted by GCMD and Boston Consulting Group (BCG) between October 2024 and February 2025.

The survey gathered 114 responses from shipowners and operators across a range of vessel types, fleet sizes, and regions. While the survey was conducted before the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) MEPC 83 session in April, its findings already reflected sustained commitment across the industry. The outcomes of MEPC 83—introducing new regulatory targets and incentives—are expected to reinforce these ambitions and further accelerate momentum.

Survey results show that 60% of respondents have now set net-zero targets (up from 54%), while the use of bio-blended fuels has more than doubled to 46%, and methanol use has increased from 3% to 6%. However, uptake of more nascent technologies—such as ammonia, wind-assisted propulsion systems, solar panels, super-light ships, and air lubrication—remains limited.

The survey also reflects the industry’s desire for policies and regulations to create a level playing field. Nearly three-quarters of respondents identified either compliance measures or financial incentives as the most important policy objectives. A level playing field will ensure that early adopters are not competitively disadvantaged on cost and stakeholders with limited resources can benefit from financial support to overcome economic barriers.

The survey also gathered insights from key bunkering ports, whose support is critical for maritime decarbonisation. Most surveyed ports have roadmaps and dedicated teams focused on initiatives to facilitate maritime decarbonisation, and all of them, namely Port of Antwerp-Bruges, Port of Long Beach, Port of New York and New Jersey, Port of Rotterdam, and Port of Singapore, offer green incentives. 

A significant concern for ports, however, is the lack of demand certainty from shipping companies for both low-carbon fuels and Onboard Carbon Capture Systems (OCCS). This ‘chicken-and-egg’ dilemma hinders ports to take on the investment decision to develop the requisite infrastructure, though the recently introduced GHG pricing mechanism is expected to strengthen demand signals for low-carbon fuels.

Dr Sanjay C Kuttan, Chief Strategy Officer of GCMD, said, “Positive developments in maritime policy, especially from the IMO, which further tighten limits on GHG emissions, along with the increased ambitions voiced by survey respondents, are encouraging signals. Greater cooperation with the ports and pertinent stakeholders across the various value chains will be required to address challenges across the broader ecosystem. With the right investments and collaborative actions, the maritime industry can chart a course to a future where sustainable decarbonisation and commercial success can co-exist.

Anand Veeraraghavan, Managing Director and Senior Partner of BCG, said, “It is encouraging to see that even in the face of global uncertainties, the maritime industry’s decarbonisation ambitions remain intact and steadfast. The recent MEPC outcomes mark a pivotal step forward, sharpening demand signals with incentives for exceeding compliance goals and penalty mechanisms for shortfalls. Now is the time for the industry—both ships and ports—to build on this momentum.

Note: The second edition of the GCMD–BCG Global Maritime Decarbonisation Survey report can be viewed here. 

Photo credit: Lukas Blazek on Unsplash
Published: 12 June, 2025

The EU and the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) dual efforts to cut shipping emissions could lead to stacked fines and higher fuel costs for ships visiting EU ports, but it could also sharpen incentives to use biodiesel blends.

11 June 2025

The EU’s FuelEU Maritime and emissions trading system (ETS) is already in force within EU territory, while the IMO’s global greenhouse gas (GHG) penalty system takes effect in 2028 and applies to EU waters, among other regions. Without coordination, ships operating in and out of EU waters that exceed both sets of limits could pay under both systems.

FuelEU targets vessel pools, while IMO rules will be applied on an individual vessel basis. Both cover lifecycle GHG emissions, but IMO’s thresholds are stricter (see chart). FuelEU penalties are currently €2,400/t of VLSFO energy equivalent ($2,708/t in May). From 2028, IMO penalties will range from $100/t CO₂ e for breaching the direct GHG limit to $380/t for surpassing the base threshold. On top of this, the EU ETS will require shipowners to pay for 100pc of CO₂ emissions from combustion in EU waters starting in 2026.

In May 2025, Rotterdam high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) averaged $415/t and ETS carbon credits averaged $79/t. Since VLSFO emits 3.114t of CO₂ per tonne burned, ETS alone would add $246/t for 100pc CO₂ charge. If a vessel also breaches FuelEU and IMO limits, it would face another $71/t and $82/t, respectively, bringing the total penalty burden to $399/t and the effective HSFO price to $814/t in 2028 (see chart). A comparable ship operating only in Asia would pay $497/t, factoring in IMO penalties alone.

In May,northwest Europe B30 biodiesel — a used cooking oil methyl ester and very low-sulphur fuel oil blend — averaged $790/t. Considering a $173/t CO₂ EU ETS emissions cost that covers 100pc of emissions from combustion, and $25/t IMO overcompliance credit in 2028, the B30 price would be $938/t, a premium to HSFO. But by 2030, the combined effect of IMO and EU penalties plus overcompliance credits would flip B30 to a discount for EU-bound ships. Outside EU waters, IMO alone would not tip the balance.

The overlapping rules are likely to prompt shipowners to concentrate low-carbon fuel use in EU waters, shifting the bulk of global shipping emissions reductions to the North Sea, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean, and northeast Atlantic, leaving the Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and western Atlantic regions with less progress.

“The [European] Commission will assess the new global measure to see how it interacts with current EU maritime-related regulations, maintaining environmental integrity while avoiding significant double burden”, it said in a statement in April. The EU has two and a half years until 2028 to make a decision.

By Stefka Wechsler

FuelEU and IMO well-to-wake GHG Intensity gCO2e/MJ

NW Europe bunkers with IMO and EU penalties $/t

Photo credit and source: Argus Media
Published: 11 June, 2025