Connect with us

Alternative Fuels

SNIC 2022: Kenoil shares green methanol bunkering endeavour and firm’s contribution to supply value chain

Desmond Chong, Managing Director of Kenoil Group, informs on the company’s contribution towards the methanol bunkering value chain in a project to establish Asia’s green e-methanol plant in Singapore.

Admin

Published

on

post 55113

Singapore-based bunker player Kenoil Group of Companies (Kenoil) provided deeper insights into its endeavour for alternative bunker fuels, namely green e-methanol, as part of its decarbonisation approach at the recent Singapore Norway Innovation Conference (SNIC) 2022 on Friday (18 November). 

Desmond Chong, Managing Director of Kenoil, said some clients who have traditionally bought fossil fuels are now looking into acquiring future bunker fuels such as methanol, ammonia and hydrogen - aligned with the firm’s decarbonisation efforts. 

Following this, Chong shared more on Kenoil’s role in a six-firm consortium for the green e-methanol pilot plant in Singapore during his presentation titled Innovation pipeline showcase: The Development of Future Fuels in the Marine Industry: Methanol

PTT Exploration and Production Public Company Limited (PTTEP), Air Liquide, YTL PowerSeraya Pte. Limited, Advario Singapore Ltd., Kenoil Marine Services, and A.P. Moller – Maersk A/S (Maersk) on 6 April signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to start a ‘Green Methanol Value Chain Collaboration’ feasibility study project. 

The study, due for completion by the end of 2022, explored the technical and economic feasibility of establishing a green e-methanol pilot plant with a minimum production capacity of 50,000 tonnes per annum (TPA) – the first of its kind in Southeast Asia.

“Kenoil with its deep expertise in bunkering plays the role as the last-mile delivery solution for methanol bunkering in the consortium. We look into safety aspects of transporting methanol bunker fuel from shore tanks to our vessels for deliveries via ship-to-ship transfers to off-taking vessels,” he said. 

When it comes to its readiness in methanol bunkering, Kenoil has prepared its fleet to be ready to keep up with the upcoming green marine fuel types. 

“We are prepared to retrofit our fleet to be suitable and compatible with methanol as it is different from conventional fuels as we transport methanol to our bunker barges,” Chong added.

“We also ensure bunkering equipment such as pipelines, bunkering hoses and systems used onboard are compatible with methanol.” 

However, it doesn’t end there for this physical bunker supplier once the feasibility study project is done. 

Kenoil will be reaching out to other off-takers to make the project a viable one as well as approaching banks to obtain in principle approvals in order to secure financing for other green related projects. 

The firm has also been reaching out to regulators such as the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) to engage on methanol bunkering. 

“We have also engaged the Methanol Institute and the Singapore Maritime Academy to prepare our crew for training on methanol bunkering and safety handling operations,” said Chong.

Related: Singapore: Players in feasibility study for first green e-methanol plant in S.E.A.

Photo credit: Norwegian Business Association (Singapore)
Published: 13 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
  • SBF2
  • v4Helmsman Gif Banner 01
  • Consort advertisement v2
  • EMF banner 400x330 slogan
  • Aderco advert 400x330 1
  • RE 05 Lighthouse GIF

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

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


  • PSP Marine logo
  • E Marine logo
  • Central Star logo
  • Synergy Asia Bunkering logo MT
  • endress
  • 300 300
  • Auramarine 01
  • Golden Island logo square
  • Kenoil
  • metcore
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1
  • 400x330 v2 copy
  • Headway Manifold

Trending