Fuel oil bunkering to linger despite new GHG rule

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO)'s revised greenhouse gas (GHG) regulation for marine fuel will dent residual fuel oil demand, but the market could persist on demand from oil tanker and dry bulk vessel owners, and on production from decarbonised petroleum refineries.

The IMO in July changed its marine fuel emissions directive from emissions from combustion (tank-to-wake) to lifecycle emissions (well-to-wake). Before that decision, ship owners were looking to mitigate emissions from fuel combustion only. Some were mulling installing sulphur oxide (SOx) and CO2-capturing scrubbers on board of their vessels, continuing to burn high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO), and paying to dispose of the captured CO2. Following the IMO July ruling, ship owners also have to take into consideration well-to-tank emissions generated during refinery production and transportation of the fuel to a bunkering port.

IMO members agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20pc, and preferably 30pc, by 2030; by at least 70pc, and preferably 80pc, by 2040; and to net zero by 2050, from 2008 base levels. If ship owners are able to dispose of their on-board captured CO2 and oil refiners can decarbonise their refineries at costs below the price of sustainable marine fuels, then residual fuel oil and marine gasoil (MGO) for bunkering demand could persist past 2040. Oil tanker and dry bulk carrier owners will likely be the two types of vessel owners to continue to burn fuel oil and MGO. They do not have the same customer and shareholder pressures to decarbonise compared with their counterparts from the container ship and cruise ship sectors.

Container shipping companies — including Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, Ocean Network Express, CMA-CGM, Matson, and Evergreen — and cruise ship companies — including Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise and Carnival — had pledged net zero emissions by 2050, even before the IMO rule change. These companies have been actively exploring the use of biofuels and are commissioning methanol-burning, methanol-ready and ammonia-ready vessels. Their investors and clients are likely to dismiss the idea of well-to-wake carbon-neutral fuel oil and MGO as a form of green washing and vote with their dollars to continue the course of sustainable fuels.

Container ships, bulk carriers and tankers were the biggest marine fuel consuming vessel categories. Internationally, containerships burned 61.7mn t residual fuel oil and MGO, while bulk carriers burned 57.9mn t and tankers burned 41.4mn t. Those volumes represent 31pc, 29pc and 21pc, respectively, of fuel oil and MGO demand, according to the latest IMO data, from 2021. Cruise ships burned 3.2mn t, or 2pc. IMO's marine fuel data collection system takes into account ships above 5,000 gross tonnes.

On a tank-to-wake basis, HSFO and very low-sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) emit 3.114 grams of CO2 per gram of fuel (gCO2/g fuel) burned, according to IMO's guidelines on lifecycle greenhouse gas intensity of marine fuels. On a well-to-tank basis, HSFO emits 0.599 gCO2/g fuel and VLSFO emits 0.675 gCO2/g fuel, for total well-to-wake emissions of 3.713 and 3.789 gCO2/g fuel, respectively. MGO emits about 0.756 gCO2/g from well-to-tank and 3.206 gCO2/g from tank-to-wake for total of about 3.962 gCO2/g well-to-wake.

In July, carbon-free fuels such as B100 biodiesel, bio-methanol, green hydrogen and green ammonia were priced at 2, 4.4, 4.6 and 4.9 times the price of VLSFO in northwest Europe, Argus assessments showed.

By Stefka Wechsler