Nordic energy company Gasum on Wednesday (10 June) said it has secured LNG terminal capacity at the Klaipeda LNG terminal in Lithuania for the period of 2033 to 2040. 

The long-term capacity reservation supports Gasum’s ability to supply the Northwestern European market with liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied biomethane (bio-LNG) over the coming decade.

The Klaipeda terminal has been a part of Gasum’s supply chain for some time already. Gasum uses the Klaipeda terminal primarily as a reloading point for its own carrier and bunker vessels, but also to support the company’s natural gas operations in Finland and the Baltic countries.

Klaipeda is well located regarding the company’s own LNG terminal network in Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Gasum will also utilise the capacity to serve its maritime customers directly in and around the Danish straits.

“Securing capacity at Klaipeda supports Gasum’s strategic long-term supply capability and gives us flexibility in optimizing deliveries to our terminal network and maritime customers. It also underpins our commitment to being a dependable partner in the energy transition”, said Anders Malm, Senior Vice President, Supply & Trading, Gasum.

The capacity at Klaipeda can additionally be used for virtual liquefaction of pipeline fed biomethane into bio-LNG, through mass balancing and biomethane certificates. 

“Gasum believes this to be an important capability going forward, as a growing number of the company’s customers are seeking to reduce the lifecycle emissions of fuel further than what LNG alone can offer,” it added. 

Photo credit: KN Energies
Published: 11 June, 2026

To meet the IMO’s emissions reduction targets, maritime industry commitment must extend to delivering greater data transparency and measurable action to prevent decarb projects from becoming mere exercises in optics, writes Esteve Servajean, Head of Marine at fuel treatment technology specialist Aderco:

While the maritime sector often expresses its commitment to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) Net Zero ambitions and 2030/2050 targets, rhetoric and reality also frequently diverge. In many respects, our sector is a laggard among global industries where emissions are concerned and needs to take a hard, honest look at itself  – or risk falling even further behind by clinging to outdated concepts, strategies and technologies.

Conventionally, ship ‘efficiency’ has been measured in fuel cost per tonne-mile. However, although many have yet to grasp the fact,  this metric is becoming obsolete. Today, the true efficiency of a ship is measured in multiple parameters, which encompass fuel cost and emissions from the stack but also include lifecycle emissions (plus upstream fuel production and vessel disposal), real-time carbon transparency, and the social and regulatory requirements for navigating relationships with ports, financial institutions and cargo owners.

At Aderco, we see this transformation daily. Five years ago, operators primarily spoke to us about fuel savings; today, they demand proven emissions reduction solutions, compatibility with future fuels and verifiable contributions to ESG performance. Companies still measuring efficiency on a single axis are already falling behind.

The future is multi-fuel

Let’s dispel another outdated misperception causing more harm than good: the belief that a single, specific alt-fuel will deliver Net Zero for maritime within the next two decades. The future is multi-fuel, and shipowners must accept and plan for that, ensuring a high degree of flexibility when assessing their options.

Accepting this proposition, it is still fair to ask what the point is of investing in a specific fuel if the ship may operate in regions where the portside infrastructure for that fuel is lacking. The truth is, the availability of green methanol, bio-LNG and ammonia at scale is years behind schedule, even at the major ports that drive global trade. For this reason, shipowners should lean towards investments into dual-fuel configurations where commercially viable and avoid long-term supply contracts tied to a single fuel.

It is not all about fuel selection; operational optimisation remains the most actionable lever today, from engine condition management and real-time fuel consumption monitoring to efficient voyage planning. Even simpler measures, including the application of high-performance anti-fouling coatings, wind-assisted propulsion systems and underwater turbines, are now part of the conversation. Various practical and complementary solutions can be implemented immediately without waiting for new fuel infrastructure to catch up.

The industry must therefore resist the temptation to standardise too early. Instead, it should build flexible, adaptive strategies that can evolve as the landscape changes. Most importantly, while some uncertainty regarding future fuels is natural, it must never become an excuse for inaction.

Regulatory fragmentation

On the regulatory side, FuelEU Maritime, the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) and the IMO’s revised greenhouse gas reduction strategy have created a framework shipowners cannot ignore. However, while shipowners are pragmatic investors, they need a clear regulatory framework and a long-term vision before they commit capital with confidence.

At present, regulatory fragmentation is a serious obstacle. The IMO sets global ambitions, but the EU is advancing on its own timeline and with its own instruments. This is forcing shipowners operating under multiple jurisdictions to navigate numerous, sometimes contradictory regulatory frameworks simultaneously.

The skills and data gap is also severely underestimated. Achieving 2030 and 2050 milestones will require not just new hardware, but new competencies in fleet management, data analytics and carbon accounting. The maritime sector is only starting to take this human capital challenge seriously.

Equally important is investment in data infrastructure. Reliable energy consumption, emissions and performance data is a crucial competitive asset, regardless of the alt-fuel selected. Unavoidably, the answer must make economic sense.

Get off the sidelines

To resolve regulatory fragmentation, only IMO can implement a carbon levy framework on a global basis. A credible, maritime-specific carbon credit scoring system could unlock capital, reward early adopters and create genuine behavioural incentives across the supply chain.

To be credible, though, this system must be built on real, verifiable data, not theoretical models, and must connect meaningfully to financial instruments to have actual market impact. We have seen too much greenwashing in other sectors, with initiatives often prioritising optics over actual emissions reductions. Maritime must therefore acknowledge its historically poor emissions data quality, get off the sidelines and take urgent action to fix it.

Fortunately, European green finance is proving a major accelerator. Instruments such as green bonds, sustainability-linked loans and the Poseidon Principles have moved into the mainstream and are now influencing key boardroom decisions. While stranded asset risk is real, so is the danger of losing competitive ground. The best approach is to focus on what can be actioned today, build flexibility into investment choices and stay closely aligned with regulatory and customer expectations. Any successful drive towards Net Zero relies on a fine balancing act between regulation and market forces.

The companies that help define credible standards will be far better positioned than those that react to them later. However, and it cannot be overemphasised, the bar for ‘credible’ must be high, incorporating transparency, independent verification and a direct link to measurable emissions outcome. Without that, we risk creating another layer of complexity with no clear impact.

Photo credit: Aderco
Published: 10 June, 2026

Once a week, bunker intelligence platform ENGINE will publish a snapshot of alternative and conventional bunker fuel prices in the world’s two biggest bunkering hubs. The following is the latest snapshot:

• B100 and LBM pooling values tumble by $100–175/mt
• Dutch ZRE A tickets decline €10/mtCO2e
• Singapore B100 flips back to discount to LSMGO

ENGINE-assessed FuelEU Maritime pooling values for B100 and liquefied biomethane (LBM) on EU-EU voyages have fallen sharply over the past week.

OceanScore’s FuelEU Pooling Index has declined by €32/mtCO2e ($37/mtCO2e) over the same period.

The drop has reduced B100’s potential pooling value by $107/mt to $531/mt. LBM’s potential pooling value has fallen by an even greater $149–174/mt to $737–864/mt, depending on engine type and methane slip.

Lower pooling values have also weakened the fuels’ overall affordability against some conventional fuels on EU-EU voyages.

B100’s discount to HSFO in Rotterdam has narrowed by $46/mt to just $1/mt, and its discount to VLSFO has narrowed by $45/mt to $104/mt. But its discount to LSMGO has widened slightly by $4/mt to $432/mt, following a sharp increase in LSMGO prices.

LBM’s discounts to LSMGO have narrowed by $92–122/mt to $667–865/mt, while its discounts to LNG have narrowed by $129/mt to $415–422/mt over the past week.

Meanwhile in Singapore, B100 has flipped to a $79/mt discount to LSMGO for EU-nonEU voyages, after briefly rising to a $44/mt premium over LSMGO the week prior.

Liquid fuels

Rotterdam’s HSFO and VLSFO prices have risen by $9-10/mt over the past week. A $24/mt increase in front-month ICE Brent futures has supported bunker prices, but a $15/mt decline in EU ETS costs has capped further gains.

Rotterdam’s B100 price has climbed by $54/mt during the same period. A €10/mtCO2e drop in Dutch ZRE A ticket prices has added some upward pressure to B100 prices.

Singapore’s VLSFO price has increased by $16/mt, while its LSMGO price has shot up by $101/mt over the past week. In contrast, the port’s B100 price has fallen by $22/mt during the same period.

Liquid gases

Rotterdam’s LNG bunker prices have risen by $22–51/mt over the past week. $16–17/mt increases in estimated EU ETS costs for LNG, combined with $1–26/mt reductions in FuelEU pooling values, have added upward pressure to prices. The impact of lower pooling values has been greatest for vessels fitted with low-methane-slip diesel slow speed engines.

The port’s LBM prices have increased by even steeper $151–180/mt, depending on engine type.

Singapore’s LNG prices have risen by $21–36/mt over the past week.

By Konica Bhatt

Photo credit and source: ENGINE
Published: 9 June, 2026