Connect with us

Alternative Fuels

SEA-LNG: Let’s call it Renewable Synthetic LNG

LNG has been referred to variously as e-methane, eLNG, Synthetic Natural Gas, and others; among SEA-LNG members, naming of the product is not always consistent.

Admin

Published

on

post 51729

Global multi-sector industry coalition SEA-LNG on Friday (3 December) released a post recommending the shipping and oil industry to consistently refer carbon-neutral LNG as “renewable synthetic LNG”.

SEA-LNG exists to support the ongoing development of the LNG decarbonisation pathway and is dedicated to helping shipping thrive through the energy transition. The end goal of this pathway, to deliver net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, requires the production of synthetic liquefied natural gas (LNG) from renewable electricity.

Renewable synthetic LNG, chemically identical to fossil LNG, but carbon-neutral, has made big advances in recent months – the ElbBlue, for example, became the first ever ocean-going vessel to be bunkered with synthetic LNG produced from renewable electricity, when it docked in Brunsbüttel, Germany, in late September. The drop-in versatility of renewable synthetic LNG and its biogenic relation, bioLNG, vindicates the continued pursuit of their commercialisation, as the order book for LNG powered ships expands.

The pathway faces challenges: loud calls for a winner takes all approach to fuel choice, when many of the fuels being championed are still at the starting gate; unthinking warnings of stranded assets, when investments made in LNG today can utilise its bio and synthetic cousins; misleading statements about methane slip, when developments by engine manufacturers are underway to eliminate it within the next few years; and confusion about the environmental performance, readiness, costs and availability of other alternative marine fuels.

The LNG pathway makes sense – from an emissions perspective and both commercially and operationally. However, anyone reading about the LNG pathway could easily be confused by the variety of terms used to describe the carbon-neutral forms of the fuel. In recent months, ‘renewable synthetic LNG’ has been referred to variously as carbon-based liquid methane, e-methane, eLNG, Synthetic Natural Gas, SNG, electro-methane, green methane, liquid green methane, liquefied synthetic methane (LSM), and hydrogen-based LNG.

Among SEA-LNG members, naming of the product is not always consistent.

SEA-LNG is committed to ensuring all our communications use the term renewable synthetic LNG. We’ve taken this step because we feel the term is clear and self-explanatory:

Renewable – It is produced from renewable electricity, for example solar and wind, and carbon from sustainable biomass or captured directly from the air around us.

Synthetic – It is manufactured through established technological processes and is not based on fossil-fuels nor derived directly from biomass.

LNG – It is chemically identical to the fuel used in shipping for more than 50 years. Implicit in this is that it can be burned in existing LNG-fuelled ships and utilise the existing network of supply infrastructure.

Though it is understandable that as our sector develops technologies for the LNG pathway, we may on occasion use different terms to describe the fuel, ultimately, we are talking about the same thing. We should aim to be consistent.

This month, SEA-LNG publishes a new animation explaining the LNG pathway, and the major role that renewable synthetic LNG has to play as the ultimate destination of that pathway. 

SEA-LNG and its members would like the video to be an introduction and a crib for anyone interested in alternative marine fuels, whether individuals are in the industry, provide services or, like the vast majority of individuals and organisations, simply want to see action taken to address climate change now.

Note: To view the new video on SEA-LNG’s YouTube channel, please click here.

 

Photo credit: SEA-LNG
Published: 7 December, 2021

Continue Reading

Technology

Singapore: MPA working with industry on next phase of digital bunkering, says Deputy CE

‘We are now working with industry on the next phase, trialling capabilities to further strengthen the integrity and quality of bunker data shared between stakeholders and MPA,’ says David Foo.

Admin

Published

on

By

Swapnil Bapat on Unsplash

Secure systems, trusted data and reliable digital services are becoming as important to maritime operations as physical infrastructure, said Mr David Foo, Deputy Chief Executive (Operations & Technology), Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), on Thursday (10 September). 

In his opening keynote speech at APPEC 2026 Shipping And Bunker Conference, Foo said OCEANS-X, Digital Bunkering and the Maritime Digital Twin are enabling trusted data sharing, better operational planning and the testing of new digital solutions.

Foo said since 2025, digital bunkering has strengthened the efficiency and transparency of bunker operations. 

“We are now working with industry on the next phase, trialling capabilities to further strengthen the integrity and quality of bunker data shared between stakeholders and MPA.” he said.

He also said MPA is taking a forward-looking approach to the energy transition.

“Over the coming decades, we are likely to see the most diverse marine fuel mix in shipping’s history. There may not be a single fuel of the future.”

“Our role as a global bunkering hub is therefore not to determine which fuel will prevail. Our role is to ensure that whichever fuels the industry adopts, Singapore is ready – with the infrastructure, standards and operational capabilities to support them.”

Foo said MPA is making concrete progress across the major alternative fuel pathways with the issuance of methanol bunkering licences and the commencement of methanol bunkering operations. 

“For ammonia, we are developing the regulatory and operational frameworks needed to support future commercial deployment. We are also facilitating greater use of sustainable biofuels,” he said.

At the same time, MPA continues to expand its LNG bunkering ecosystem, with additional licences issued this year. 

“This will broaden supply options as more LNG-fuelled vessels enter the global fleet. We have also just updated our LNG standards, while maintaining the high standards of safety and reliability that underpin Singapore’s reputation as a trusted bunkering hub,” Foo added.

Related: MPA Chief Executive: Port of Singapore begins digital bunkering initiative today
Related: Singapore: Golden Island, GET, and PetroChina to receive methanol bunkering licences
Related: Singapore: Equatorial Marine Fuel among eight selected for new LNG bunkering licences
Related: Singapore strengthens LNG bunkering framework with new SS 727 standard

 

Photo credit: Swapnil Bapat on Unsplash
Published: 10 September, 2026

Continue Reading

LNG Bunkering

DNV report: LNG bunker fleet may need to more than double by 2030 to meet demand

Global LNG bunker vessel fleet may need to more than double by 2030 as demand from LNG-fuelled ships grows faster than the infrastructure required to supply them, according to DNV white paper.

Admin

Published

on

By

DNV report: LNG bunker fleet may need to more than double by 2030 to meet demand

The global LNG bunker vessel fleet may need to more than double by 2030 as demand from LNG-fuelled ships grows faster than the infrastructure required to supply them, according to a new DNV white paper published on Wednesday (9 September). 

The report estimated that between 165 and 208 bunker vessels could be needed globally by the end of this decade.

As LNG-powered shipping continues to grow, demand for bunkering capacity is rising rapidly. Although the LNG bunker fleet is expanding steadily, demand from LNG-fuelled vessels is expected to grow even faster, placing increasing pressure on bunker vessels and the wider bunkering ecosystem. 

Without additional investment across this value chain, fuel supply could become a constraint on further LNG adoption in shipping. DNV’s white paper, Gas bunker vessels: facilitating the transition to alternative fuels, highlights how gas bunker vessels are evolving from specialist fuel delivery assets into critical infrastructure supporting shipping’s fuel transition.

Cristina Saenz de Santa Maria, CEO Maritime at DNV, said: “Shipping’s fuel transition depends on more than ships and fuel choices. It also depends on the infrastructure, supply chains, and operational capabilities needed to make alternative fuels available safely and at scale. As the fuel landscape continues to evolve, investment in flexible, reliable, and future-ready bunkering infrastructure will be essential.”

The white paper examined market developments, regulatory requirements, vessel design considerations, gas bunker vessel technical specialities, and operational best practices, while outlining the role gas bunker vessels will play in supporting both current LNG demand and the future adoption of alternative fuels.

The white paper also highlighted opportunities to accelerate market development through the conversion of suitable small-scale LNG carriers into bunker vessels. 

In addition, it examined the growing importance of operational readiness, structured safety management, and competence development as bunkering operations become more frequent and geographically widespread.

Martin Cartwright, Global Business Director, Gas Carriers & FSRUs at DNV, said: “LNG-fuelled shipping is growing faster than the bunkering network needed to support it. Closing this gap will require coordinated investment across the bunkering ecosystem, underpinned by robust safety standards, operational readiness and competence. These elements must advance together if gas bunkering is to scale safely and reliably, while also supporting future pathways, such as biomethane.”

While the white paper focused primarily on LNG, it also considers the emergence of ammonia as a potential marine fuel. The infrastructure, operational experience, and safety frameworks being developed for LNG bunkering today are expected to play an important role in supporting the future deployment of ammonia bunkering solutions.

Note: The report by DNV can be found here

 

Photo credit: DNV
Published: 10 September, 2026

Continue Reading

EU ETS

KPI OceanConnect on EUAs: September is the deadline, but strategy is the bigger story

With 100% EU ETS exposure for 2026 emissions, an alternative fuels strategy can no longer be treated separately from carbon management, says Jesper Sørensen.

Admin

Published

on

By

Jesper Sørensen, Global Head of Alternative Fuels and Carbon Markets at KPI OceanConnect

Jesper Sørensen, Global Head of Alternative Fuels and Carbon Markets of KPI OceanConnect, on Wednesday (8 September) wrote that while the 30 September deadline to surrender EUAs is approaching, managing exposure to EU ETS is about more than how and when allowances are purchased.

He said fuel choice and alternative fuels strategy should also form part of companies’ broader carbon-management approach: 

EUAs: EU ETS surrender deadline highlights rising maritime carbon costs, as higher compliance obligations and EUA exposure increase the strategic importance of biofuels, fuel procurement and integrated carbon management ahead of full shipping inclusion in the EU ETS from 2026.

As the 30 September EU ETS surrender deadline approaches, the immediate message for shipowners, operators and charterers is straightforward: make sure your verified emissions position is understood, your exposure is calculated, and your allowance needs are settled in good time.

But this year’s deadline should also be seen as something more than an annual compliance event. It is a reminder that carbon costs are becoming an increasingly important part of vessel operating economics, and that the most effective response is not only to buy EUAs but also to think more strategically about how fuel choices influence overall compliance exposure.

This matters because the cost of the same level of emissions is rising even before we consider market volatility in EUA prices. The reason is the phase-in of the maritime EU ETS. For 2024 emissions, shipping companies were required to surrender allowances for 40% of in-scope CO₂ emissions. For 2025 emissions, that rises to 70%. From 2026 emissions onwards, the obligation moves to 100%.

In other words, even if the EUA price were to remain unchanged, the compliance bill for the same emissions profile becomes materially larger. That is an important shift. It means carbon exposure is no longer something to address only at the end of the reporting cycle. It increasingly needs to be considered when making fuel procurement and voyage-planning decisions.

The EUA market itself reinforces that point. Price volatility remains a feature of the market, and that makes planned procurement more important than ever. The objective is not to predict the perfect entry point. It is to understand the exposure, settle the near-term obligation in a timely manner, and develop a strategy to reduce future risk. But managing EUA exposure is increasingly about more than how and when allowances are purchased.

Over recent months, the economics of biofuels, particularly B100, have become increasingly compelling in several trading scenarios. When assessed only on a headline fuel price basis, the picture can appear mixed. But when viewed through the lens of total compliance cost, the economics can look materially different.

Qualifying sustainable biofuels can help reduce EU ETS exposure by reducing the number of allowances that need to be surrendered, while also improving compliance under FuelEU Maritime. In other words, a well-structured biofuel strategy can support compliance across both regulatory regimes simultaneously.

It does not follow that biofuel is automatically the most efficient solution for every vessel, voyage or trading pattern. In many cases, purchasing EUAs will remain the right answer. In others, alternative fuels can reduce exposure across multiple regulatory frameworks and materially change the overall economics.

That is why the September surrender deadline should be viewed as both a compliance event and a useful point to look forward.

With 100% EU ETS exposure for 2026 emissions, an alternative fuels strategy can no longer be treated separately from carbon management. Fuel procurement, EUA procurement, and FuelEU compliance increasingly need to be considered together before the bunker decision is made, rather than after emissions have already occurred.

 

Photo credit: KPI OceanConnect
Published: 10 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending