Japan to back ammonia bunkering infrastructure building

: Emissions, Fertilizers, Hydrogen, Natural gas, Oil products
21/05/24

Japan is considering providing support for development of ammonia bunkering infrastructure as part of efforts to launch ammonia-fuelled commercial ships by 2028 under Tokyo's roadmap to decarbonise by 2050.

The transport ministry today proposed subsidising the research and development (R&D) of hydrogen- and ammonia-fuelled vessels using part of the government's ¥2 trillion ($18bn) green innovation fund earmarked to help achieve Japan's 2050 decarbonisation goal. The subsidy is expected to help enhance the international competitiveness of Japanese shipbuilders and ship equipment producers and promote the use of zero-emission vessels after 2030.

The ministry is targeting to commercialise ammonia-fuelled vessels by 2028 or earlier as its first-generation zero-emission vessel. It has proposed providing finding for the development of ammonia-fuelled marine engines, ammonia storage and fuelling system for ships, as well as ammonia refuelling infrastructure, including an ammonia bunkering vessel, in efforts to meet the targeted commercial launch of the ships.

This is in line with the country's roadmap unveiled last year to launch zero-emission vessels by 2028 to assist the global shipping industry's decarbonisation efforts.

The ministry added that it is essential to back ammonia bunkering infrastructure building to assist Japanese shipping and shipbuilding firms in fast-tracking commercialisation of ammonia-fuelled vessels on the back of an intensifying global race for development of the carbon-neutral ship.

Growing competition with Chinese and South Korean shipbuilders has forced a wave of consolidation in the Japanese shipbuilding industry to enhance its competitiveness. Japanese shipbuilders are now accelerating development of greener and zero-emission vessels in efforts to ride out a tough market and tap potential growth in the global decarbonization movement.

A number of Japanese firms are looking into developing ammonia-fuelled vessels and ammonia bunkering infrastructure in Japan and abroad. Japanese joint venture Nihon Shipyard in March completed a concept design of an ammonia-fuelled very-large crude carrier.

The transport ministry is considering funding the development of hydrogen-fuelled marine engines and hydrogen fuelling systems, targeting to complete a demonstration project of hydrogen-fuelled vessels by 2030. It is also planning to subsidise R&D for technologies to achieve a 60pc reduction in methane slippage from LNG-fuelled marine engines by 2026, as use of LNG as a marine fuel is on the rise during the transition to carbon-neutral fuels.

A group of Japanese marine engine makers last month agreed to form a joint venture to develop hydrogen-fuelled engines for large commercial vessels operating on domestic and international routes.

By Rieko Suda

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

25/04/11

US MAP-DAP premium primed to return on tariffs

Houston, 11 April (Argus) — The period of MAP and DAP prices trading near parity will be short-lived because newly-imposed US import tariffs could amplify MAP supply woes, market participants told Argus . MAP and DAP prices have traded in close proximity since early January, diverting from the significant MAP premium seen last spring and summer when a surplus of DAP was imported into the US. After limited MAP barge trading in March, activity accelerated at Nola this week as it became clearer that all non-North American phosphate imports would face at least 10pc import tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump starting last week. The Nola MAP price was assessed at a midpoint of $636.50/st fob this week, up by $9/st from last week, while DAP was assessed $12.50/st higher at $632.50/st fob Nola. Despite the "reciprocal" tariffs on certain phosphate producing countries being lowered to a universal 10pc this week by Trump for 90 days — in line with the original tariff imposed on other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Australia last week — the remaining levy is still enough to deter vessels from coming to Nola, sources said. In response, the Nola MAP price has averaged a $5.75/st premium to the Nola DAP price for April so far, flipping from a $3.88/st average discount in March. That is still a far cry from October 2024, when the Nola MAP price averaged a $61.45/st premium over the Nola DAP. From August through November, the Nola MAP price was 13pc higher on average than DAP. US market participants expect the premium to expand in the coming months as MAP is the preferred product of most farmers during the fall application season, potentially impacting buying decisions for that period. The US from July through February has imported 759,000 metric tonnes (t) of DAP, down by 26pc from the same period last year, according to US Census Bureau data. This lapse in imports for the start of 2025 was an initial driver in DAP's rising premium over MAP. In comparison, MAP imports for the same period have totaled roughly 853,000t, up by just 5pc from the year before. But at least 290,000 t of MAP will need to be brought into the US between now and the start of the summer to equal out with the tonnage imported for the full 2023-24 fertilizer year ahead of fall applications. That is a task that may not be easily achieved given the new tariff on most phosphate imports. One buyer this week said they could consider switching usual MAP demand toward an alternative NPS product heading into October and November given the difficult supply outlook for the US. "We are very much in wait and see mode, trying to see how tariffs evolve and how it works its way into the market in terms of price," another buyer said. The significant premium MAP held last fall also limited overall phosphate applications conducted by farmers, therefore raising the bar for the amount of phosphate fertilizer farmers will need to put into the ground later this year to replenish soil nutrients. By Taylor Zavala US DAP/MAP barge prices Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Mexico suspends Valero fuel import permits

25/04/11

Mexico suspends Valero fuel import permits

Mexico City, 11 April (Argus) — Mexico's tax authority SAT on 9 April suspended US refiner Valero's fuel import permits, the company said today. The company did not specify why its import license was suspended. "Valero is addressing each administrative observation noted in the suspension to clarify the issues. Additionally, [authorities] mistakenly stated that the company does not have valid import permits, which is incorrect since the permits are valid through 2038," the company said. When consulted, Valero told Argus it has no further information to share at this time. In Mexico, Valero holds gasoline, diesel and jet fuel import permits valid through 2038. The company is one of only a handful of private-sector companies with such permits. Shell, Marathon and ExxonMobil hold permits to import only gasoline and diesel. Valero is the leading private fuel importer in Mexico. On 9 April, its sales accounted for 10pc of Mexico's gasoline and diesel demand, according to the company. Private-sector companies started importing fuel into Mexico in 2016 after the market opened to more competition, but under former president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's administration, the energy ministry (Sener) cancelled dozens of fuel import permits. Valero is cooperating with the Mexican government and has recently joined a voluntary price cap agreement to keep regular gasoline below Ps24/l ($4.45/USG), the company said, adding that it "implements rigorous traceability and security controls throughout its supply chain." The company stores fuel at four private-sector terminals in Mexico, with over 4mn bl of capacity. The company is also expected to start storing fuel at the new 1.1mn bl OTM terminal in Altamira, Tamaulipas, in the near future. By Cas Biekmann Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism

25/04/11

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — International shipping organisations and market participants mostly support the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism approved today at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, but some raised concerns. The structure approved by the IMO establishes that ships must reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. Emissions above this target will be charged at $380/tCO2e. The levels defined by the approved regulation are achievable, according to a market participant, who said the gradually increasing targets may allow the market to properly adapt to the transition. The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) secretary general Guy Platten said the sector is already investing billions of dollars in 'green' technology, so the agreement gives certainty that sustainable marine fuels producers need. "The world's governments have now come forward with a comprehensive agreement which, although not perfect in every respect, we very much hope will be formally adopted later this year," he said. The European Shipowners (ECSA) secretary general Sotiris Raptis agreed the draft "is not perfect", but he celebrated progress towards a net zero emissions target, saying "it is a good starting point for further work" and pointing out that it may ensure the necessary investment in production of clean fuels. During a press briefing, IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said ships operating in international waters will be obliged to comply with the regulations after adoption, despite the US' refusal to engage with the discussions . Adoption of the pricing mechanism will be discussed and voted on in October. Offering a counterview, the Global Maritime Forum said the agreed measures may not be strong enough to reach IMO targets. "The GHG intensity targets create uncertainty as to whether the strategy's emissions reduction checkpoints for 2030 and 2040 will be met," it said. "As currently designed, measures are unlikely to be sufficient to incentivise the rapid development of e-fuels such as e-ammonia or e-methanol , which will be needed in the long run due to their scalability and emission reduction potential." It said that failure to invest in these fuels would put at risk the target of at least 5pc zero- and near-zero emission fuel use by 2030 and the industry's entire 2050 net-zero goal. The World Shipping Council's vice president Bryan Wood-Thomas praised the agreement and said one benefit of it is the pricing system that is "more aggressive" if a vessel fails to meet the GHG intensity standard. "But you also have a fee system that gives investors more confidence in actual revenue [from using cleaner fuels]," he said. The Brazilian representative told Argus the fact that some countries thought the agreement was too ambitious while others indicated it was not ambitious enough show the group may have reached a balance that can be possible to comply. About the Brazilian position, the representative said the country "was never against an agreement". "We were only against some aspects of the agreement, and we think that the membership has heard our concerns, and that's why we ended up pretty happy with the results", he said. Brazil voted in favour of the agreement today. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Madeleine Jenkins, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US tariffs cast a shadow on global gas market

25/04/11

US tariffs cast a shadow on global gas market

Steel can make up nearly a third of an LNG terminal's pricetag, so the new levies could push up costs and push back start-up dates, writes Xiaoyi Deng London, 11 April (Argus) — US president Donald Trump's volatile tariff policy and some of the countermeasures already announced by large trade partners are unlikely to cause any direct disruption to global gas markets. But they will have a direct impact on future US liquefaction capacity. And the indirect effects on gas supply and demand could be huge, stemming from a weaker macroeconomic outlook, fuel substitution and inflationary pressures on infrastructure development. US LNG developers hailed Trump's return to office, after complaining that his predecessor complicated the issuance of additional export licences. But Trump's imposition of 25pc tariffs on all foreign-sourced steel and aluminum, from 12 March, will increase infrastructure costs in the US' upstream and midstream sectors. These present an immediate risk for US LNG developers, particularly for the five projects under construction and the six others expected to reach final investment decisions (FIDs) this year. Metals account for up to 30pc of the cost of an LNG export plant. A terminal can cost $5bn-25bn to build, depending on its size, with steel used for pipelines, tanks and other structural frameworks. Facilities can be built using some domestically produced metal, but higher prices for this might lead to construction and FID delays for the country's planned liquefaction projects. US tariffs' primary effect on the domestic gas market stems from duties levied on non-energy goods used by the oil and gas industry, including steel and specialised pipeline components such as valves and compressors, which are imported. The US remains a net natural gas importer from Canada , but these flows are unlikely to be affected by trade tariffs, given the lack of alternative supply sources available to some northern US states. Tariff baiting Trump's latest tariff round , unveiled on 2 April, involves a a minimum 10pc on all foreign imports from 5 April,with much higher tariffs on selected countries that briefly came into force on 9 April, before Trump bowed to panic in financial markets and announced a 90-day pause. China is the key exception. It has announced retaliatory tariffs that could disrupt US energy exports, resulting in an escalation that leaves the overall levy at 145pc in the US and 125pc in China. China had already stopped importing US LNG earlier this year. But disruption to trade between the world's two largest economies may weigh heavily on manufacturing activity in China, in turn reducing industrial gas demand. And the ripple effects of disruption to US LPG exports to China may alter fuel-switching economics in the region and beyond. Most other countries in Asia-Pacific have opted not to follow China's lead by retaliating. The Japanese government intends to negotiate a better tariff deal and is considering investing in the US' proposed 20mn t/yr Alaska LNG export project as part of wider efforts to reduce its trade surplus with the US. Countries in Asia-Pacific have been hit with some of the highest of Trump's targeted duties. The EU is keeping retaliatory measures on the table, but these are unlikely to involve US LNG. Europe has become much more reliant on LNG imports after losing the bulk of its Russian pipeline supply, and imposing tariffs on energy imports would only reignite inflationary pressures that European countries have tried to curb over the past three years. The bloc says it is ready to negotiate on possibly increasing its US LNG imports to reduce its trade surplus and would axe tariffs on industrial imports if the US agrees to do the same. But Trump says this is not enough, citing the EU's upcoming Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism as one of the "unfair trade practices" that justifies a tariff response. US LNG project pipeline mn t/yr Project Capacity Expected start/FID Under construction Plaquemines 19.2 2025 Corpus Christi stage 3 12.0 2025 Golden Pass 18.1 2026 Rio Grande 17.6 2027 Port Arthur 13.5 2027 Waiting for final investment decision Delfin FLNG 1 13.2 mid-2025 Texas LNG 4.0 2025 Calcasieu Pass 2 28.0 mid-2025 Corpus Christi train 8-9 3.3 2025 Louisiana LNG 16.5 mid-2025 Cameron train 4 6.8 mid-2025 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

25/04/11

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting. Argus Media spoke to ministerial adviser and Finland's head representative at the IMO delegation talks, Anita Irmeli, on the sidelines of the London MEPC meeting. What is your initial reaction to the text? We are happy and satisfied about the content of the agreed text, so far. But we need to be careful. This week, all member states were able to vote. But in October, when adaption will take place, only those states which are parties to Marpol Annex VI will be able to vote if indeed a vote is called for, and that changes the situation a little bit. Here when we were voting, a minority was enough — 40 votes. But if or when we vote in October, then we need two thirds of those party to Marpol Annex VI to be in favour of the text. Will enthusiasm for the decision today remain by October? I'm pretty sure it will. But you never know what will happen between now and and the next six months. What is the effect of the decision on FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS? Both FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS have a review clause. This review clause states that if we are ambitious enough at the IMO, then the EU can review or amend the regulation. So of course, it is very important that we first consider if the approved Marpol amendments are ambitious enough to meet EU standards. Only after that evaluation, which won't be until well after October, can we consider these possible changes. Do you think the EU will be able to adopt these the text as it stands today? My personal view is that we can perhaps incorporate this text under FuelEU Maritime, but it may be more challenging for the EU ETS, where shipping is now included. What was the impact of US President Donald Trump's letter on the proceedings? EU states were not impacted, but it's difficult to say what the impact was on other states. By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more