Connect with us

Interview

Foreship: Energy density and safety aspects of alternative marine fuels must be addressed in future ship designs

‘Methanol-ready’ term has been overstretched to include ships which are far from ready for the alternative marine fuel, Jan-Erik Räsänen, Chief Technology Officer, Foreship tells Manifold Times.

Admin

Published

on

Foreship: Energy density and safety aspects of alternative marine fuels must be addressed in future ship designs

The increasing use of alternative marine fuels due to IMO 2030/2050 regulations is creating challenges that ship designers still need to overcome, according to Helsinki-based ship design and engineering specialist Foreship.

“’Future proof design’ is one of the key words of the shipping industry these days,” Jan-Erik Räsänen, Chief Technology Officer, Foreship told bunkering publication Manifold Times.

“While clearly still challenging, designing ships for lower emissions was more straightforward in the early days because it involved heavy fuel oil (HFO) and marine gas oil (MGO); their superior energy density and relatively high flash point offer great flexibility when designing ships.

“However, while alternative bunker fuels are a good thing due to their lower emissions, they also come with challenges. Ship designers have to consider the energy density, energy content and, due to their low flash points, these fuels must be accessed and stored in separate tanks.”

Foreship 14 Large format

Challenges of marine engine retrofits to use methanol and LNG

The option of retrofitting vessel engines to use alternative marine fuels such as methanol and liquified natural gas (LNG) also pose their own set of issues, highlights Räsänen.

“Today most shipowners thinking about a retrofit probably consider methanol as their starting point; for ship designers the methanol is a good bunker fuel as it offers flexibility in choosing between different storage tank locations on a vessel,” he explained.

“However, one of challenges for methanol is the need to do more structure-wise when compared to traditional bunker fuels such as HFO and MGO. Designers must strengthen the hull to cope with additional weight from the weight and introduction of cofferdams; containerships will most likely lose cargo space as a result of the conversion.

“Foreship has already done several conversion designs for cruise ships to use methanol, and the conversion can be more straight forward than some might expect, with double bottom tanks and ballast water tanks used to store the bunker fuel. However, doing so comes at a cost – structure-wise.”

Räsänen points out that classification societies also offer initial thoughts on engine retrofit plans to consume methanol. Additionally, engine manufacturers such as Wärtsilä and MAN offer retrofit kits for their own two-stroke engines to simplify the process.

“As such, today we usually ask shipyards to strengthen the hull to accept alternative bunker fuel,  ,”  Räsänen noted, although he expressed reservations on the use of LNG as a future marine fuel. “We are debating heavily on methane slip especially on four-stroke LNG engines,” he said.

‘Methanol-ready’ term overstretched

Moving forward, Räsänen felt the term ‘methanol-ready’ has been over-used, at a time when its definition has not been standardised by class societies.

In general, to secure approval-in-principle (AiP) status as a ‘methanol-ready’, ship owners must agree that a certain number of vessel modifications need to be  carried out so that the ship can consume methanol as a bunker fuel.

However, shipowners can secure the in-principle approval before all of the modifications are carried out, with the ship notated as ‘methanol-ready’ on the basis that it is on the right path.

“This is a departure from the ordinary understanding of what it means for something to be ‘technology-ready’, said Räsänen. “Given what is at stake, it’s essential that these terms aren’t vulnerable to being considered gimmicks.”

Potential risks included ship managers taking a vessel on long term charter on the grounds that it was ‘methanol-ready’ when a full evaluation of its conversion had not been undertaken.

“This AiP has varied between different class societies, and I’d say there certainly needs to be standardisation on what ‘methanol-ready’ notation means – as a matter of priority .”

 

Photo credit: Foreship
Published: 7 May 2024

Continue Reading

Interview

China’s bunker market reshaped by tax rebates, trade flows and refining changes, says economist

Dr Kang Wu discusses how China’s bunker fuel tax rebate, shifting refinery output, import flows and alternative fuel adoption are reshaping the country’s marine fuels market and its competitive position.

Admin

Published

on

By

Dr Kang Wu

China’s growing role in the marine fuels market is reshaping the competitive dynamics between Chinese bunkering hubs and established centres such as Singapore.

 In this interview with Manifold Times, Dr Kang Wu, Energy Economist specialising in China and Southeast Asia at Global Energy Research and Educational Training Pte. Ltd., discusses the impact of China’s bonded bunker fuel tax rebate, domestic refining and import trends, the adoption of LNG and methanol, and pricing differentials with Singapore, while also examining China’s surplus of UCOME:

MT: How has China’s 2020 VAT rebate policy for bonded bunker fuel, especially for low-sulphur fuel oil, affected the competitiveness of Chinese ports like Zhoushan in comparison to traditional hubs like Singapore?

The impact has been significant, mainly because the rebate extends beyond the VAT. Effective February 2020, the Chinese government introduced a rebate policy for the 13% VAT on China’s fuel oil exports (including bunker fuels) to bonded areas. More importantly, the rebate also covers the fuel oil consumption tax, which amounts to 1,218 yuan per metric tonne (mt), or roughly $27/bbl. This policy has fundamentally transformed the economics of China’s fuel oil exports to bonded areas. However, as discussed below, China still needs to import large volumes of bunker fuel because domestic supply remains insufficient to meet demand

MT: With China’s independent refiners (teapots) now producing more compliant low-sulphur fuel oil, what share of China’s bonded bunker demand is now met domestically vs. imported from places like  Malaysia or Russia?

Although independent (“teapot”) refiners cannot export bunker fuels directly as they do not have export quotas, their increased production helps quota-holding national oil companies (NOCs) as well as Zhejiang Petroleum & Chemical Co., Ltd. expand their exports. However, it is worth noting that China’s overall fuel oil production has been declining in recent years because refiners increasingly use deep conversion processes to maximise the production of lighter products and petrochemical feedstocks. In 2025, China exported a record 376,000 b/d of fuel oil, the vast majority of which was shipped to bonded areas. At the same time, China imported 396,000 b/d of fuel oil, primarily from Russia, Malaysia and Singapore, down from the record 514,000 b/d imported in 2024. These imports and exports together form the foundation of China’s bonded-area fuel oil market.

MT: Given China’s push for LNG bunkering and its IMO 2030/2050 decarbonisation targets, how quickly are Chinese ports and shipowners adopting LNG or methanol bunker infrastructure compared to conventional VLSFO?

Indeed, China has made a major push to promote LNG and green methanol as marine bunker fuels, and progress has been steady. However, given the relatively low starting base, their rising impact on VLSFO consumption is expected to be gradual.

MT: How do fluctuations in China’s industrial production and coal imports (via dry bulk carriers) directly correlate with bonded bunker fuel demand at major Chinese ports?

Bonded bunker fuel demand at major Chinese ports is indeed influenced by China’s overall import and export activities. Although China’s coal imports have declined since reaching a record high of 543 million mt in 2024, the country’s total merchandise trade volume has continued to grow year by year. At the same time, China’s GDP growth has slowed compared with a decade ago. In addition, structural changes in trade patterns and shipping routes (such as a decline of exports to the US and a surge of exports to other countries) have also affected bunker fuel demand. A more detailed analysis is needed to determine the precise relationship between trade activity and bonded bunker fuel demand.

MT: What is the typical price spread between Chinese bonded bunker fuel and Singapore’s delivered bunker prices, and how do factors like China’s export quotas or refinery maintenance create arbitrage opportunities?

Following the introduction of the tax rebate policy discussed above, Chinese ports have gained a pricing advantage in the bunker fuel market, as more competitively priced bunker fuel produced domestically has become available. As a result, China’s delivered bunker fuel prices have typically traded at a discount of $15–30/mt to those in Singapore. However, prices fluctuate, and China’s bonded bunker fuel prices are not always lower than Singapore’s for three main reasons. First, China still needs to import large volumes of fuel oil, including VLSFO, into its bonded areas. Consequently, prices in these markets remain closely linked to Singapore’s delivered bunker prices. Second, the volume and timing of export quota allocations to the NOCs play an important role in determining the availability of domestically produced bunker fuel in bonded areas. At times, limited quota availability can tighten supply, resulting in shortages at China’s bonded ports. Third, during periods of geopolitical or market disruption, such as the Iran conflict since February 2026, market fundamentals can change rapidly, leading to heightened price volatility.  The bottom line is that, regardless of the absolute price spread between China and Singapore, fluctuations in the spread and China’s need to import bunker fuels continue to create arbitrage opportunities for traders.

MT: Anti-dumping duties and policies introduced by the European Commission and western regulators have resulted in overcapacity of UCOME in China; given the material cannot obtain ISCC EU certification to be blended as bio-bunker fuel (i.e. EU ETS, carbon credits), what will be your advice to Chinese holders of excess UCOME?

Like many other renewable energy products (such as solar panels) and electric vehicles, China’s UCOME industry has expanded rapidly and now faces growing trade barriers in Western markets because of its strong export growth. While there are no easy solutions for producers with excess capacity, several strategies could help.  First, producers should continue improving efficiency and reducing costs to remain competitive despite the import duties and other trade measures imposed by the EU and some other developed economies. Second, they should diversify export markets beyond the EU by targeting emerging opportunities in advanced economies such as Singapore. In particular, Singapore could leverage China’s surplus UCOME supply to accelerate the development of its sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and bio-bunkering industries. Finally, China’s UCOME industry could encourage the Chinese government to expand domestic blending mandates, including greater use of SAF and bio-bunkering fuels, to stimulate domestic demand and help absorb excess production.

Dr Wu will be leading a two-day executive briefing, China Oil Market Dynamics, held on 26 to 27 October in Singapore. The intensive briefing will provide a comprehensive outlook on China’s oil market through 2035, covering the key market, policy, economic and structural forces shaping its future. More information on the event and registration can be found here.

 

Photo credit: Kang Wu
Published: 28 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

NW Corporation expands Malaysia bunkering fleet with acquisition of “BELLAA 1”

The company’s immediate growth strategy remains focused on Port Klang, where it continues to strengthen its market presence and provide comprehensive bunkering solutions for its customers.

Admin

Published

on

By

NW Corporation expands Malaysia bunkering fleet with acquisition of “BELLAA 1”

Singapore-based commodities and oil cargo trading firm NW Corporation Pte Ltd (NWC) has expanded its Malaysia bunkering operations through the acquisition of Bellaa 1 (IMO 9269398), increasing its monthly bunker supply capability to approximately 30,000-35,000 mt.

Bellaa 1 is a Malaysia-flagged bunker tanker with a loadable cargo capacity of approximately 5,000-5,500 mt of Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (LSFO),” Jason Tan, Co-founder and Head of Commercial of NWC, told Manifold Times on Tuesday (14 July).

“The addition of Bellaa 1 represents another important milestone in our fleet expansion strategy. It strengthens our operational capability, improves supply flexibility and enables us to better support the increasing demand for LSFO in Port Klang.”

Following the acquisition, the bunker tanker underwent an intermediate survey, was renamed in Singapore and is scheduled to commence commercial bunkering operations from August 2026.

According to Mr Tan, the acquisition will expand NWC’s LSFO supply capability, improve operational flexibility, increase vessel availability, enhance service reliability and support continued growth in bunker sales at Port Klang.

“NWC commenced bunkering operations at Port Klang in April 2024 with a single bunker barge and an initial monthly supply volume of approximately 10,000 mt,” said Mr Tan.

“The introduction of Bellaa 1 will increase our monthly bunker supply volume from approximately 20,000 mt to around 30,000-35,000 mt, driven by continued growth in bunker demand at Port Klang.”

Bellaa 1 back MT

Since entering the Port Klang market in 2024, NWC has steadily expanded its bunkering operations in tandem with growing customer demand. The latest fleet addition reflects the company’s continued investment in strengthening its supply capability and operational reliability.

Moving forward, Mr Tan pointed out NWC’s immediate growth strategy remains focused on Port Klang, where the company continues to strengthen its market presence and provide comprehensive bunkering solutions for its customers.

“Our immediate priority remains Port Klang, where we continue to see strong opportunities for growth. We will keep investing in fleet capability, operational efficiency and customer service while strengthening our trading activities and bunker supply network,” he stated.

“With a growing fleet, experienced operational team and strong partnerships with major bunker traders and suppliers, we are well positioned to expand our market share and reinforce our position as a trusted bunker supplier in the region.”

About NW Corporation

NW Corporation Pte Ltd is a Singapore-headquartered commodities and energy trading company engaged in oil cargo trading, bunkering, marine logistics and energy infrastructure investments across Asia. The company has been expanding its bunkering footprint in Port Klang as part of its long-term regional growth strategy.

Related: Singapore: NW Corporation welcomes “Fortune Glory” after three-week drydocking ops
Related: NW Corporation strengthens Port Klang operations with newly acquired bunker tankers

 

Photo credit: NW Corporation Pte Ltd
Published: 12 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Interview

Exclusive: Caroline Yang takes helm on future of IBIA Asia

The newly appointed Chair of IBIA’s Regional Board – Asia, shares her plans to strengthen bunkering standards while promoting transparency and industry collaboration across key Asian maritime hubs.

Admin

Published

on

By

Exclusive: Caroline Yang takes helm on future of IBIA Asia

Caroline Yang, CEO of Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd, outlines her plans for IBIA Asia in her first interview with Manifold Times since becoming Chair of the Regional Board – Asia:

MT: Why is IBIA important to the bunkering market in Asia?

IBIA Asia is amongst five regional boards operating under the umbrella of London-based IBIA Global. Its presence in Asia is vital because the region, excluding the Middle East, accounts for more than 50% of global bunkering volume.

While Singapore continues to maintain its strong lead as the world’s busiest bunkering port with almost 56 million mt of marine fuel delivered in 2025, several ports in China are showing to be strong bunkering ports as well; these developments take place on the back of a forecast for China to be amongst the leading suppliers of green fuels such as methanol.

Based on this alone, IBIA Asia has to play an important role in raising and addressing issues of suppliers and shipowners and the other parties in the regional bunkering eco-system.

MT: What is the overall state of bunkering standards at major Asian ports and how can IBIA elevate this?

Singapore is the clear leader in standards, acting as a “flag bearer” with established protocols including SS 600 for bunkering, SS 648 for bunker mass flow metering, SS 524 for quality management of bunker supply chain, TR 56 for LNG bunkering, and TR 80 for meter verification using master MFM.

While other Asian ports are adopting mass flow meters – a positive step – IBIA Asia’s role is to disseminate these best practices while maintaining deep respect for local operational realities and regulatory environments.

MT: As Chair of the Regional Board – Asia, what are your plans to make this happen? Are there any topics you will be focusing on?

The IBIA Asia regional board of 10 members from comes from a diverse group of suppliers, shipowners, bunker buyers, fuels testers and bunker tanker owners. Backed by a strong secretariat, we are committed to move the needle for bunkering in Asia.

Our initial strategy is outreach-driven, progressing beyond a Singapore-centric approach. For starters, the board will be concentrating on Hong Kong, Zhoushan, and Shanghai, with potential expansion to Japan and South Korea.

The core objective is to promote the quality, transparency, and integrity of bunkers lifted in Asia. This includes building on existing MOUs such as the collaboration with Hong Kong Shipowners Association (HKSOA) to explore alternative bunker fuels, and participation in regional maritime week programmes.

MT: Do you expect to encounter any challenges? What do you think are the solutions?

Challenges, without a doubt; these include macro-level standards and topical quality issues, such as those highlighted in a recent FOBAS report.

We are aware most solutions will not have instant results, but produce short-term, mid-term and long-term responses.

The solution lies in structured communication and feedback loops involving industry, regulators, and experts. Success requires an altruistic approach where stakeholders prioritise the health of the bunkering ecosystem to achieve win-win outcomes, even at the compromise of individual sectors.

MT: Is participation of local/regional IBIA members included within your plan? How will they be involved?

Member participation is the foundation of an association’s strength. The plan involves active outreach – meeting members where they operate and integrating them into meetings to ensure the board’s positions reflect representative industry views. We must push out credible, strong messages to encourage active engagement. If there is anyone in the maritime bunkering in these areas and reading this interview, reach out to us so we can start our conversations!

The Secretariat and some board members have scheduled to visit and attend bunkering events in Hong Kong and China. In November 2026, IBIA will participate in the Hong Kong Maritime Week by organising a one-day conference. We hope to be also participating in the Shanghai Pudong Maritime Conference and the 9th International Petroleum and Natural Gas Enterprises Conference (IPEC 2026), also known as the “Zhoushan Bunker Oil conference”, in late October.

MT: How will previous experience gained at SSA, ICS, MPA, SMF, and Hong Lam Marine contribute to your role at IBIA?

As CEO of Hong Lam Marine, our bunker tankers supply about 10% of bunkering volume in Singapore, so we are an involved and relevant stakeholder. My experiences in the above-mentioned organisations have taught me how to crystallise and articulate important issues, engage effectively with diverse stakeholders, and leverage on pre-existing professional connections to engage more effectively for IBIA Asia.

Related: IBIA announces Caroline Yang as new Regional Board Chair for Asia
Related: IBIA and Hong Kong Shipowners Association to collaborate on alternative bunker fuels
Related: FOBAS report warns of growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 6 August 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending