Connect with us

Alternative Fuels

“K” Line to expand current Singapore-based LNG, ammonia bunkering projects to other parts of the world

Firm will accumulate experience and knowledge at its base in Singapore as preparation to create organisations in three bases, including Europe and the United States.

Admin

Published

on

K Line Report 2022

Japanese transportation company Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. (“K” LINE) recently said it plans to launch individual projects in each country and region in which it operates around the world, similar to LNG bunkering vessel management and ammonia bunkering vessel projects in Singapore.

In a special feature in the firm’s 2022 report, Kiyotaka Aya, Senior Managing Executive Officer, Supervising Marine Sector, Chief Safety Officer (CSO), said this when highlighting the establishment of its ship management company in Singapore, K Marine Ship Management Pte. Ltd. 

He said Singapore is the largest bunkering port in the world and is at the forefront of initiatives to promote the shift to alternative fuels for low-carbon and carbon-free marine transportation.

Some examples of this include a ship management project for ship-to-ship LNG bunkering vessels, which began in 2021, and an ammonia bunkering vessel project for ships, for which joint studies began in 2022 as a member of a consortium. 

Going forward, he said, the company expects to launch individual projects in each country and region in which we operate around the world, similar to the LNG bunkering vessel and ammonia bunkering vessel projects in Singapore. 

“Ship management companies are a contact point for such projects and play a role in accurately addressing customer needs for low-carbon and carbon-free marine transportation through a region-based customer support system. Accordingly, at our base in Singapore, we will accumulate experience and knowledge as preparation to create organisations in three bases, including Europe and the United States, as set out in the medium-term management plan,” he said in the report. 

In the report, ‘K’ Line also mentioned approximately 40 LNG-fuelled vessels will be added to its fleet by 2030 under its low-carbon and carbon-free initiatives. 

The company also said it expects ammonia to become a vital type of fuel in achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. 

In another special feature in the report, Toyohisa Nakano, Executive Officer in charge of GHG Reduction Strategy, said under the medium-term management plan, which they announced in May 2022, the “K” LINE Group is currently accelerating the introduction of vessels fueled by liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), with the aim of promoting the shift to a low-carbon and carbon-free footprint of the Company and society.

“However, LNG and LPG are also fossil fuels and emit CO2 emissions when consumed as fuel, although comparatively less than conventional heavy oil. Meanwhile, a significant feature of ammonia is that it does not emit CO2 emissions, even when burned,” he said. 

He added the company is promoting numerous projects related to creating a supply chain for supplying ammonia as a fuel for vessels, in addition to the development of ammonia fuelled vessels.

As such, he said they are currently involved in the commercialisation of ammonia bunkering vessels in Singapore.

 

Photo credit: “K” LINE
Published: 6 December, 2022

Continue Reading

LNG Bunkering

Titan completes first STS LNG bunkering operation in Cuxhaven

Port of Cuxhaven in Germany had previously only seen LNG operations conducted via truck and currently only permits LNG bunkering at one berth, says Titan.

Admin

Published

on

By

Titan completes first STS LNG bunkering operation in Cuxhaven

LNG bunker fuel supplier Titan on Thursday (11 July) said it completed the first-ever LNG bunkering operation by ship in the port of Cuxhaven.

Titan’s bunker vessel Optimus successfully delivered LNG to dredger Vox Ariane operated by its long-term client Van Oord. 

“Our ship-to-ship bunkering in Cuxhaven represents a pioneering step in the region's LNG infrastructure development, as the port had previously only seen LNG operations conducted via truck and currently only permits LNG bunkering at one berth,” it said in a social media post. 

“LNG infrastructure development is part of a broader trend, with more ports across Germany adopting LNG operations to support shipping’s clean fuels transition.”

Titan added the improved LNG bunkering capabilities in Cuxhaven, a Niedersachsen Ports GmbH & Co. KG port, also opened up the pathway to maritime decarbonisation via liquified biomethane (LBM) and then renewable e-methane going forward.

 

Photo credit: Titan
Published: 12 July, 2024

Continue Reading

LNG Bunkering

UECC “Auto Achieve” receives first LNG bunker fuel delivery by barge in home country

Firm said it received the first ever supply of LNG by barge to their multi-fuel LNG battery hybrid car carrier in the Port of Drammen, Norway.

Admin

Published

on

By

UECC “Auto Achieve” receives first LNG bunker fuel delivery by barge in home country

Norwegian roll-on/roll-off shipping line United European Car Carriers (UECC) on Wednesday (10 July) said it received the first ever supply of LNG by barge to their multi-fuel LNG battery hybrid car carrier Auto Achieve in the Port of Drammen on 4 July.

The firm said this was the first time UECC received LNG by barge to any of their vessels in their home country Norway. 

“We also believe that it was the first time LNG was delivered by barge to any vessel in Drammen, and most likely the entire Oslofjord,” UECC said in a social media post.

The LNG was supplied by the Molgas Energy Holding vessel Pioneer Knutsen, owned by Knutsen Group OAS.

“UECC is very pleased to see the expansion of the LNG barge network in Norway,” it said. 

 

Photo credit: UECC
Published: 12 July, 2024

Continue Reading

FuelEU

OceanScore reveals ship segments set to feel EUR 1.3 billion sting of FuelEU penalties

Container segment will bear the brunt of FuelEU costs, accounting for 29% of gross penalties, followed by RoPax on 14% with tankers and bulkers each on 13%, says firm.

Admin

Published

on

By

OceanScore Managing Director Albrecht Grell

Hamburg-based technology platform OceanScore on Tuesday (9 July) said the financial impact of FuelEU Maritime is focusing the minds of shipping companies as they face potential penalties for non-compliance with greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity reduction targets - and OceanScore has identified those segments set to be hit hardest.

The following is an article by OceanScore elaborating on the matter:

Vessels in the passenger/cruise, container, RoPax, bulker and tanker segments will have significant cost exposure from the complex regulation due to be implemented from 1 January next year, despite a relatively modest initial target of a 2% cut in GHG intensity, according to OceanScore.

The firm’s data analytics team has calculated that shipping will rack up total FuelEU penalties of €1.345 billion in 2025 through analysis of the 13,000 vessels over 5000gt trading within and into the EU/EEA that are subject to the regulation. This is based on data on trading patterns and fuel mix from 2022 - the last full year currently available.

Containers bear burden

The team has been able to determine FuelEU compliance balances and resulting penalties for each vessel using OceanScore’s proprietary data modelling incorporating AIS data, Thetis emissions data, bunker intelligence and advanced analytics/AI. It has factored in the likely fuel mix for each vessel between EU ports and to/from the EU, as well as in ports.

Vessels will be hit with a penalty of €2400 per tonne of VLSFO-equivalent for failing to meet the initial 2% reduction target relative to a 2020 baseline for average well-to-wake GHG intensity from fleet energy consumption of 91.16 gCO2e per megajoule (MJ) - or emissions per energy unit. The GHG intensity requirement applies to 100% of energy used on voyages and port calls within the EU/EEA and 50% of voyages into and out of the bloc.

As with the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), it is the container segment that will bear the brunt of FuelEU costs, accounting for 29% of gross penalties, followed by RoPax on 14% with tankers and bulkers each on 13%.

“It is critical for shipping companies to determine a baseline for expected FuelEU costs to secure proper planning and budgeting processes to compare different mitigation options, as well as to decide what to do with outstanding compliance balances,” says OceanScore Managing Director Albrecht Grell.

“This will require, to a higher degree than the EU ETS, a corporate strategy to determine how to reduce the compliance balance/deficit, how to commercialise a surplus and deal with deficits that remain.”

Wide spread of vessel liabilities

OceanScore has found that liabilities per vessel will differ widely across the various segments due to increasingly diversified fuel choices, including greater uptake of biofuels and LNG. Passenger vessels will be penalised the most with an average of €520,000 per vessel annually, followed by RoPax at €480,000 and RoRo at €314,000, with an average penalty for container ships of only €214,000, according to OceanScore.

Grell points out there are also massive discrepancies between vessels within these segments, with a number of ships in the passenger and RoPax segments exposed to penalties of between €1.8m and €2.5m, and payment obligations for some container ships approaching €1m. This is driven by higher energy consumption simply due to vessel size and trading profile.

While penalties will arise from so-called compliance deficits for vessels using conventional fuels, surpluses totalling an estimated €669m will be generated mainly by vessels fuelled by LNG and LPG with significantly lower carbon intensity.

LNG carriers will account for 78% of the total market surplus and gas carriers 8%, while a further 8% will be generated by container ships that have seen a modest uptake in alternative fuels in recent years.

Pooling can halve costs for the industry

Taking into account this estimated compliance surplus, the net cost of FuelEU penalties for shipping from 2025 would be €680m, which indicates that pooling of vessels can roughly halve the gross burden for the industry.

Penalties will, in segments typically using conventional fuels with comparable carbon intensities such as HFO, LFO or MDO, be roughly proportional to the overall fuel consumption, thus correlating with the EU ETS cost.

Initial costs of FuelEU for most conventionally fuelled vessels, prior to pooling, will be around one-third of those associated with the EU ETS next year when the latter regulation will have 70% phase-in. But ultimately FuelEU is likely to prove a much more costly affair as the requirement for GHG intensity cuts rises to 6% by 2030 and then accelerates to reach 80% by 2050.

“It is therefore incumbent on shipowners to define their strategies not only towards fuel choices and the use of onshore power but also towards handling of residual compliance balances such as pooling, banking and borrowing of balances, to mitigate the financial impact of FuelEU. However, pooling will also come at a cost, while banking and borrowing will incur interest costs and only push liabilities into the future,” Grell explains.

‘Sound administrative processes’

He further points out that pooling compensations paid between different shipping companies will effectively divert cash flow away from the EU that it would otherwise have earned from FuelEU penalties – but that this effect is intended by the regulator to “reward” early adopters of clean fuels.

Another factor that will curb potential income for the EU from this regulation is that the compliance gap has been reduced to only 1.6% by 2022, as average GHG intensity from shipping has come down by 0.4% to 90.82 gCO2e per MJ, mainly due to increased LNG carrier calls to Europe after gas supplies via pipelines from Russia were halted when the latter invaded Ukraine. Given this trend and increasing adoption of biofuels, the 2% compliance gap will probably be closed before the first tightening of reduction targets in 2030.

Grell says the priority for shipping companies, especially at this early stage while cost exposure is relatively low, is to get to grips with the complexity of the regulation and tackle the risks arising from the fact the party liable for penalties - the DoC holder, or possibly shipowner - is not the one responsible for emissions, which is typically the charterer.

“As well as having costs oversight, companies require reliable monitoring and reporting mechanisms with high-quality emissions data. They must also have in place complex contractual arrangements and sound administrative processes to manage compliance and mitigate the financial consequences of the new regulation,” Grell concludes.

Related: FuelEU: New regulation leaves DoC holder with fuel liabilities risk, says OceanScore
Related: ‘Big opportunity’ for bunker traders, suppliers on upcoming FuelEU regulation, forecasts OceanScore

 

Photo credit: OceanScore
Published: 12 July, 2024

Continue Reading
Advertisement
  • EMF banner 400x330 slogan
  • v4Helmsman Gif Banner 01
  • Aderco advert 400x330 1
  • RE 05 Lighthouse GIF
  • SBF2
  • Consort advertisement v2

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

  • SEAOIL 3+5 GIF
  • Singfar advertisement final
  • HL 2022 adv v1
  • Triton Bunkering advertisement v2
  • 102Meth Logo GIF copy


  • Synergy Asia Bunkering logo MT
  • E Marine logo
  • Innospec logo v6
  • PSP Marine logo
  • MFA logo v2
  • SMS Logo v2
  • Golden Island logo square
  • Kenoil
  • Auramarine 01
  • Uni Fuels logo advertisement white background
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • 400x330 v2 copy
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1
  • Headway Manifold

Trending