Environmental benefits of LNG-fuelled marine vessels

Clean-burning liquefied natural gas (LNG) can help you navigate the future. Fuelling fleets with LNG can
reduce your emissions, helping fleets meet new international environmental regulations requiring cleaner
marine fuel.

LNG reduces ship emissions

A comprehensive, independent 2019 study by thinkstep analyzed the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions of the use of liquefied natural gas used as a marine fuel compared with conventional oil-based
fuels. It also assessed air quality, comparing local pollutants from vessels using LNG compared with
conventional fuels.

The Life Cycle GHG Emission Study on the Use of LNG as Marine Fuel On the Use of LNG as a Marine
Fuel report concluded that compared to other marine fuels, LNG can lower ship exhaust emissions of:

 sulphur oxides (SOx) to almost zero

 nitrogen oxides (NOx) by up to 95 per cent for diesel cycle engines and up to 85 per cent for
Otto cycle engines

 particulate matter (PM) by up to 99 per cent

 greenhouse gases (GHG) by up to 21 per cent over the entire life cycle, depending on the engine
technology.
LNG as ship fuel

A large number of LNG fuelled ships and LNG tankers sailing the oceans today have been certified and
classed by us, while we have also conducted numerous terminal feasibility and safety studies as well as
certification and survey work. We have and we are running studies on behalf of private organisations and
governmental bodies to prepare our clients for the introduction of a small scale LNG value chain.

Why LNG as fuel for ships and other consumers?

LNG as a fuel is both a proven and available commercial solution. LNG offers huge advantages,
especially for ships in the light of ever-tightening emission regulations. Conventional oil-based fuels will
remain the main fuel option for most vessels in the near future, and, at the same time, the commercial
opportunities of LNG are interesting for many projects. While different technologies can be used to
comply with air emission limits, LNG technology is a smart way to meet existing and upcoming
requirements for the main types of emissions (SOx, NOx, PM, CO2). LNG can be competitive pricewise
with distillate fuels and, unlike other solutions, in many cases does not require the installation of
additional process technology.

Crude oil, ship fuel & gas price development

The figure below gives an overview of oil, ship fuel and gas price development. Gas lower heating value
(lhv) has to be assumed for ship fuel. Most sources from the gas industry use upper heating value (uhv)
which gives about 10% lower LNG prices than indicated here for lhv prices. Liquefaction costs have to be
added to henry hub price. LNG in Europe competes with pipeline gas therefore only costs of distribution
to the ship have to be added to gas price given in the figure. Prices in the figures are yearly average prices
until 2014. The later prices are the spot prices at the beginning or end of the month.
LNG as an alternative fuel for the operation of ships and heavy-duty vehicles

The transport sector is characterised by distinct rises in energy consumption both throughout Europe and
globally. In addition to its dependency on limited fossil resources (e.g. mineral oil), the transport sector is
further recognised as a key contributor to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. On a global scale,
transport is responsible for about 22% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In Germany, the contribution
of road transport to overall greenhouse gas emissions ranges between 17% and 20%. A successful
introduction of renewable energies in combination with a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the
sectors ship and road transport is associated with a number of special challenges. These include calls for
innovations in propulsion technology, infrastructure solutions as well as primary energy diversification.
/Liquefied natural gas (LNG) presents an alternative for simultaneous application with fossil fuels derived
from crude oil (e.g. diesel), with a special focus on means of transport that require an extended operating
range or a demand for high performance output. For these reasons, the present study investigates
technological components relevant for LNG supply and infrastructure including associated environmental
impacts. In a second step, the study explores possible scenarios for the introduction of focal modes of
transport: maritime transport, inland naviga-tion and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs). These scenarios
include estimates on resulting future LNG de-mand followed by calculations of local emissions and
greenhouse gases. Furthermore, recommenda-tions for action regarding a potential LNG development
plan are derived from the findings. However, the present study does not attempt in-depth cost analyses.
Key drivers Key drivers for the introduction of LNG in the transport sector include an extended operating
range in comparison with CNG as well as a distinct reduction of local emissions, or simplified exhaust
gas af-tertreatment measures. Decreases in fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions may also be achieved.
1The existing LNG infrastructure for a specific mode may act as a driver for preferential utilisation of
LNG in other modes. Stricter emission standards (SO2, NOx, particulate matter and heavy metals) in
maritime transport necessitate a switch from heavy fuel oil (HFO) to marine diesel oil (comparable to
diesel) or LNG. Among the key drivers in inland navigation are stricter emission standards (NOx, PM),
sector-specific GHG emissions reduction targets and decreased fuel costs. For heavy-duty vehicles,
decreased or moderately rising fuel costs in comparison with diesel fuel are expected in the foreseeable
future. Furthermore, the operation of dual-fuel engines complying with EURO VI standards is expected
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The extended operating range of LNG compared with CNG may
present a relevant advantage in long-distance HDV transport. Based on renewable methane, LNG
contributes to achieve the EU target of 10% renewable energies in the transport sector by 2020.

The availability of LNG is primarily determined by the availability of fossil natural gas or RE
methane (methane derived from renewable electricity). Both options are associated with positive growth
per-spectives. Moreover, the presence of a suitable infrastructure for liquefaction, transport, supply and
distribution of LNG, whether from maritime imports from global sources or via on-site liquefaction and
distribution, is a vital factor for the availability of LNG on the market. In Europe, the development of
LNG infrastructure will be supported by regulatory measures in the EC Clean Power for Transport
package as well as through national LNG platforms or LNG corridor projects. However, the current
projections do not expect LNG to play a major role on the global market by 2020. In Europe, ¾ of the
overall demand is expected to be supplied by pipelines whereas only ¼ will be supplied with natural gas
in the form of LNG. The scenarios in the present study identify opportunities for the perspective to
substitute a major share of the LNG demand with RE methane. Thus, GHG reduction potentials are
recognised. However, these must be weighed against impediments associated with the supply of RE
methane. Key messages on the perspectives of LNG The perspectives for LNG as an alternative fuel in
ship transport and road freight transport were inves-tigated with analyses of the LNG market, the
technology for powertrains and infrastructure and the potential emissions reductions. As a result, the
following key messages apply: Across applications  Introduction of LNG requires careful preparation
including the identification and evaluation of all relevant technological and economic risks.  Increased
security of energy supply with LNG through diversification of fuels  Suitability for long-distance
freight transport as an alternative to diesel  Limited reduction of GHG emissions with fossil LNG
produced with current techniques, rele-vant GHG reductions achievable only with RE methane  Few
ships and vehicles operated with LNG at present  LNG infrastructure requires development from the
ground up  LNG suppliers are unlikely to invest in additional infrastructure unless a robust perspective
for increased LNG demand is evident  National regulations may impede or desynchronise
infrastructure development  On-site liquefaction of natural gas or methane highly relevant as a
perspective, primarily in the integration of (fluctuating) renewable energies  Expected future
renewable electricity potentials allow relevant substitution of LNG with RE me-thane. However,
substitution of LNG in competition with additional consumers (other transport, hydrogen/fuel cell
vehicles, stationary sector)  The considerable energy input required for fuel synthesis demands careful
application of syn-thetic fuels. The key tasks are the identification of transport sectors in which the
application of synthetic fuels is essential and transport sectors in which synthetic fuels are economic.

The present study explored the potential for LNG (liquefied natural gas) meets the energy
needs of maritime transport and inland navigation as well as those of HDVs while simultaneously
reducing pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. From 2015, sulphur emissions in the North and Baltic
Seas the will be reduced to such low standards that ocean-going vessels will not be able to operate on
HFO anymore without elaborate purification procedures. The regulation is expected to be extended
globally by 2025 [LR 2012]. Since 2011, inland waterway vessels are required to operate on ultra-low-
sulphur diesel as already mandatory for HDVs. The European Union is expected to limit the CO2
emissions for HDVs in the same manner as existing standards for passenger cars and delivery vehicles
suggest. In consequence, significantly improved fuel efficiency will have to be achieved. If these high
fuel efficiency targets are unattainable, the focus will be on CO2-free fuel from primarily renewable
feedstocks.
A systematic literature review on LNG safety at ports
Olga Aneziris , Ioanna Koromila, Zoe Nivolianitou

In this paper a systematic literature review on safety and risk assessment at ports storing and transferring
liquefied natural gas (LNG) has been performed. In addition, regulations, standards and guidelines for
assessing hazards and risks of LNG storage at ports and during bunkering are presented. Legislation on
safety concerns LNG storage tanks, trucks, buffer ships and LNG fuelled ships. 35 legislation documents
have been analyzed and reviewed in this paper. A further literature review has been conducted; 23 articles
in English were selected for final analysis, distributed between the years 2008 and 2018. The analysis
pointed out scientific and harmonization gaps. Safety and hazard zones should be further studied and
investigated, in case of various LNG bunkering modes and storage capacities.

Environmental pollution has increased significantly over the last years and several actions have been
taken to reduce it, based on the principles of sustainable development. In the maritime sector, the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) has made concerted efforts to enforce regulations reducing
harmful emissions from ships. IMO has introduced regulations on the prevention of air pollution through
the context of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78),
by setting limits on some of the most important air pollutants such as: sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxide,
ozone depleting substances, and volatile organic compounds (IMO, 1997). In addition, the MARPOL
Regulation 13 set up dedicated emission control areas (ECAs), where strict controls have been established
to minimize airborne emissions. Ship owners are looking for alternative energy sources and new
technologies to replace conventional fuels, namely marine gas oil and heavy fuel oil. A very promising
option for ships is the installation of alternative propulsion systems using liquefied or compressed natural
gas (LNG, CNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), methanol, or hydrogen. Another recently emerged
option is the use of alternative sources such as biofuels and synthetic fuels (European Commission, 2011).
In shipping, the adoption of LNG as a fuel with lower environmental impacts is currently in progress
owing to the current availability of resources, its competitive cost and its excellent thermodynamic yields
offering high energy efficiency. Ships powered by LNG have been built and are now operating in many
countries around the world; the Norwegian passenger ship MV Glutra is the first LNG-fuelled ship, built
in 2000 and classified by DNV, the Norwegian Class Society. Countries around the Baltic and the North
Sea, have been obliged to reduce their emissions since 2005, and are now pioneers in the use of LNG
(IMO, 1997). The very first LNG bunkering port was the port of Stockholm; other European ports
followed, such as the ports of Rotterdam and Zeebrugge. There are also LNG bunkering ports in the
United States such as the port of Jacksonville, and Asian ports in Singapore and Kochi. So far, twenty one
LNG ports worldwide, are operating while ten have confirmed plans to operate by 2020 (DNV-GL
“LNGi” database). A further sharp reduction in the sulphur limits for marine fuels is expected to enter
into force worldwide on the 1st January 2020 (IMO, 2011). The use of LNG as marine fuel is, thus,
expected to increase, as foreseen by Wang and Notteboom (2014), by imposing on countries without prior
experience the creation and operation of new LNG port installations. Discussions have started on
establishing LNG facilities in southern Europe and Asia, while some LNG port installations are under
construction, a fact that, in the coming years will increase the number of ports providing LNG bunkering
services. Nevertheless, the knowledge regarding safe storage, handling and supply of LNG is still
insufficient. Legislation focusing on LNG maritime activities was recently established with the adoption
of the IGF code; the International code of safety for ships using Gases or other low-flashpoint Fuels for
construction and bunkering of LNG fuelled vessels (IMO, 2015a). Since then, many guidelines and best
practices have been composed, providing assistance to various stakeholders for safety related issues.

The use of LNG as an alternative fuel for ships requires, apart from its economic and technical
viability, the existence of an appropriate legal framework to ensure the protection of human life and the
environment. In the context of the current paper, the authors collected all the mandatory regulations,
existing standards and guidelines, as well as recommended practices and technical notes published until
the end of 2018 in the field of LNG safety and carried out a review. The material collected is classified
according to the three identified bunkering modes and will be discussed in the following sections.

LNG-fuelled ship. The convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) constitutes the first attempt
to frame the overall safety of merchant ships (IMO, 1974). SOLAS requires Flag States to ensure that
their ships comply with minimum safety standards in their construction, equipment choice and operation.
Since 1974, several revised or new regulations have been amended in SOLAS. In the amendments
introduced in 2015, a new part G was added to Chapter II-1 including the regulations 56 and 57 for ships
using low-flashpoint fuels. These amendments ensure also the implementation of the new IGF code which
was adopted by Maritime Safety Committee and has been mandatory since January 2017 (IMO, 2015a).
This Code provides an international regulation that LNG-fuelled ships are required to implement for the
arrangement, installation, control and monitoring of machinery, equipment and systems for minimising
the risk to the ship, its crew and the environment. Directly linked to SOLAS is also the Seafarers’
Training, Certification and Watch-keeping code (STCW code), where a new mandatory regulation for the
special training and qualifications of personnel on ships subject to the IGF Code was amended and
entered into force on January 2017 (IMO, 2015b).

Safety of the LNG bunkering operations is a critical factor, since various stakeholders are
involved, such as port authorities, shipping company, and crew of the receiving ship. Hodgson and Lee
(2012) discussed LNG bunkering operations and have described the minimum number of equipment
pieces together with the systems and methodologies that must be used to achieve enhanced LNG
transportation. In addition, storage and handling systems as well as information on various discharging
unit options are examined. A year later, Lukauskas et al. (2013) conducted a research on requirements of
LNG bunkering port infrastructure applied in Klaipeda port. In the same year and on the basis of the ISO
TC67 working group Skramstad (2013) presented the progress with respect to guidance (in the form of
technical specification) on how to meet safety requirements for the bunkering process specified by
national or port authorities. More specifically, the presentation referred to the establishment of a new
group that would develop new guidelines for dealing with systems and installations supplying LNG as
fuel to ships. This discussion eventually led to the publication of the ISO 18683 in 2015 (ISO, 2015b).
Wang & Notteboom (2015) investigated the role of port authorities in the development of LNG bunkering
facilities focusing on the performance of eight public port authorities in northern Europe, namely
Antwerp, Zeebrugge, Rotterdam, Bremen, Hamburg, Stockholm, Gothenburg and Helsingborg.
Information on the size, type and general strategy of the port, as well as facilities for LNG bunkering have
been presented. The need of safety assessment is highlighted for LNG port facilities, especially when
sited close to residential areas. The analysis of the ports has shown that the port authorities intend to play
a proactive role in coordinating and facilitating new applications of innovative technologies such as
maritime use of the LNG. Lindøe and Kringen (2015) conducted a study on risk governance processes by
examining two hazardous industrial areas near the centre of a Norwegian city. A ferry terminal, where a
facility has been installed to store and distribute LNG both for the use as ship fuel and for other uses, is
compared with a terminal where containers and also petroleum products are traded. The main purpose
was to highlight the importance of the government's risk perspective in such complex and trans-boundary
issues of potentially controversial nature.
Real option analysis for environmental compliance: LNG and emission
control areas
By: Michele Acciaro

A wide array of technical and operational solutions is available to shipowners in order to comply with
existing and upcoming environmental regulation within Emission Control Areas (ECAs). Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) is a promising alternative since it offers potential cost savings in addition to ensuring
compliance with ECA regulation. But investment to retrofit existing vessels to be able to use LNG carries
significant upfront costs, and a high degree of uncertainty remains on the differential between the prices
of LNG and conventional maritime fuels, as well as on the availability of LNG and the reliability of its
supply chain. New technologies such as LNG inherently carry substantial risk and an ill-chosen
investment strategy may have irreversible consequences that could jeopardise the future of the shipping
company. One important question is whether interested owners should invest in LNG now to comply with
ECA rules in 2015 and reap the benefits of lower LNG prices, or whether it would be advisable to wait
until some of the uncertainty is resolved. While traditional discounted cash flow techniques are unable to
account for the value of managerial flexibility linked, for example, to the possibility of deferring an
investment, real option analysis can be used to analyse such cases. The paper discusses the optimal time
for investment in LNG retrofit and takes specific account of the value of an investment deferral strategy
versus the advantages obtainable from the immediate exploitation of fuel price differentials. Through the
use of a real option model the paper shows that there is a trade-off between low fuel prices and capital
expenses for investment in LNG retrofit. The development in LNG is critically dependent on its future
price as well as the reduction in capital costs and ship retrofitting costs. In this respect, policy makers can
play a critical role in providing support to advance technical knowledge, maintain LNG prices at
favourable levels and in avoiding ambiguity on regulation.

Shipowners operating in an Emission Control Area (ECA) face increasing operating costs due to the
stringent regulation in ports, and have to learn about the available options for compliance with regulation.
While the first implementation of the sulphur ECA had rather limited consequences on everyday
operations, the more stringent limits of 0.1% that will apply in 2015, are certainly of bigger concern.
Furthermore, the additional limitations on nitrogen oxides, which will affect newbuildings from 2016
onwards (see editorial to this special issue), will allow compliance technologies to reach maturity faster.

One of the benefits of the upcoming regulation is that it has created an incentive for owners and operators
to re-evaluate their current fuel-use strategies. This, Coupled with increasing fuel prices in the maritime
industry as well as heightened societal awareness of the environmental impacts of maritime transport, has
contributed to an acceleration in the search for alternative compliance measures. The most realistic
alternatives are: the switch to higher-quality fuels, low in sulphur content and generally referred to as
distillates; the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems, often referred to as maritime scrubbers, in
combination with selective catalytic reduction to reduce nitrogen oxides for new vessels; and the
retrofitting of existing vessels to operate on LNG. The switch to distillates is the measure that generally
carries the lowest capital costs, as the modifications to the vessel are smaller than in the other cases and
distillate fuels are in principle widely available worldwide. The major issue with distillates has to do with
the price at which they will be made available. Distillate fuels are typically 30–50% more expensive than
the sulphur-rich fuel commonly burned in ocean-going vessels, and their price could increase more
rapidly as production capacity is limited and demand rises substantially following the introduction of
more ECAs around the world and the tightening of sulphur content limits. Exhaust gas cleaning systems
make use of chemical processes to clean the ship exhausts of sulphur up to the regulatory limits. While
scrubbers are a well-tested technology on land, their use at sea is still not well established. Maritime
scrubbers are large pieces of equipment and their use often requires detailed technical studies and carries
relatively high installation costs. Accurate cost figures are difficult to produce, as they depend on the type
and size of the vessel, and often on its technical characteristics, which can be such to even prevent the
installation of the equipment. Furthermore, the market for scrubbers is still very dynamic and it is likely
that its costs will decrease over time, as it is often the case with new technologies. The use of LNG as an
alternative maritime fuel in order to comply with ECA regulation is becoming a more tangible possibility
as studies and sea-trials increase and as LNG-propelled vessels become a reality beyond the drawing
board. Notwithstanding the enthusiasm of manufactures and some owners following the successful launch
of new vessels, the uncertainty associated with the use of LNG as a maritime fuel is still substantial.
There are few vessels in use around the world and only a few ports provide LNG as a maritime fuel at the
moment, although many are planning to develop new bunkering facilities.

Emission to air regulation is rapidly being implemented in the shipping sector. The IMO, the USA and the
EU have been particularly active in the development of policies (e.g. IMO Resolution MEPC.176(58) and
EU Directive 2005/33/EC) aiming at the reduction of sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions from ships
(Miola et al., 2010; Acciaro, accepted for publication, 2011b), given their well-documented noxious
effects on the environment, human health and climate1 (Eyring et al., 2010; Endresen et al., 2008;
Buhaug et al., 2009). These effects are linked to the type of fuel burned and the type of engine used and
can be reduced if the engines are adapted to use alternative fuels (LNG, biofuels) or higher quality fuels
(distillates), or if exhaust gas cleaning systems are implemented. Since distillates are considerably more
expensive than the heavy fuel oil traditionally burned in ships (Notteboom, 2011), and the other
alternatives require rather costly engine modifications, several studies have focused on the cost impacts of
regulation (Wang et al., 2007a,b; Notteboom, 2011; CE Delft et al., 2006; Psaraftis and Kontovas, 2009,
2010; Kontovas and Psaraftis, 2009; Bosch et al., 2009; NERA Economic Consulting, 2005). Some
shipping groups (Maersk, Wallenius and Greig, just to mention a few) have shown an environmentally
proactive attitude towards emission reduction and are in the forefront of the development and exploitation
of emission reduction measures. Such an attitude has certainly been favoured by the more stringent
regulation that has been in place in the Baltic and in the North Sea since the middle of the last decade, but
is also the result of the cost reduction efforts in the industry following increasing fuel price volatility and
the benefits deriving from green marketing practice in shipping and logistics (Huang and Rust, 2011;
Peattie and Crane, 2005). A further incentive to emission reduction has come from the possible
developments in the area of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the recently adopted Energy
Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) (see Longva et al. (2010) on the EEDI economic effects), a heightened
debate has been ongoing on a set of possible market based measures (Faber et al., 2010; Heitmann and
Khalilian, 2011; Miola et al., 2010). Several studies have shown that substantial reductions in carbon
dioxide emissions can be obtained through technical and operational measures (Eide et al., 2009, 2011),
or by using alternative fuels (Acciaro et al., 2012). The implementation of these measures though comes
often at a cost and until clear indications are provided by the policy maker, it is unlikely that the industry
will take decisive action. In shipping, in fact, as with other transport sectors, compliance is typically the
most important criterion to justify large investments in emission reduction strategies (Psaraftis and
Kontovas, 2009; NERA Economic Consulting, 2005; Acciaro et al., 2013; Acciaro, 2011a), although
there is increasing evidence that cost saving considerations and sustainability can favour the
implementation of new technologies (Notteboom, 2011; CE Delft et al., 2006; Johnson and Andersson,
2011; Acciaro, 2011a). Among the technologies that are currently being evaluated, the possibility for
ships to switch to LNG as a main fuel has been the subject of careful consideration in the industry in the
last few years. LNG offers potentially substantial advantages that make it attractive in particular for ECA
compliance. It does not require any cleaning of emissions to comply with ECA regulation as sulphur
oxides emissions are reduced to zero and LNG four stroke engines, typically used on-board ships
engaging in short sea and coastal shipping, have nitrogen-oxide emission levels below Tier III regulation,
applicable in ECA from 2016. LNG is also very low in particles, and allows for a reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions in the range of 20–25% (Germanischer Lloyd, 2012). Accidental releases of methane
used to be an issue, but for most modern engines, carbon dioxide equivalent emission reduction is
estimated between 15% and 25% (Pitt et al., 2010; Æsøy et al., 2011). If life cycle assessment and
fugitive emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds during distribution are considered (Brett,
2008; Bengtsson et al., 2011; Bengtsson, 2011), a realistic estimation of well-to-propeller life cycle
emissions is in the range of 10% lower than diesel fuel chains (Verbeek et al., 2011). Carbon emission
reduction is not part of the ECA regulation, and limits to carbon emissions are unlikely to be particularly
stringent in the short term (Gilbert and Bows, 2012). An alternative to further decrease the incidence of
carbon emission could be bio-LNG produced from bio-methane, but its availability is currently limited
(Ecofys, 2012). Furthermore, one of the main advantages of LNG is that, if vessels are to comply with
ECA terms, they need to either invest in exhaust gas cleaning systems, or make use of distillates. Exhaust
gas cleaning systems are a temporary solution, and also not yet widely used in shipping. In order to
comply with the upcoming regulation on nitrogen oxides they would require further modifications,
typically the inclusion of a selective catalytic reduction system to further clean the exhaust. Such
combination of systems would allow the shipowner to keep on using heavy fuel oil, rich in sulphur, but
cheaper than distillates. LNG represents a cheap alternative to distillates, without the use of exhaust gas
cleaning systems. LNG capital costs are currently typically higher than the combination of exhaust gas
cleaning systems and selective catalytic reduction systems, and their attractiveness resides in the
possibility that LNG prices will settle at substantially lower levels, allowing owners that have invested
timely in the technology to reap substantial cost savings. The future prices of LNG are largely unknown
as an international market for natural gas does not exist and the distribution infrastructure for using it as a
fuel for shipping is in its infancy, making any estimate a wild guess. The prices of LNG nonetheless are
likely to remain low as the gas markets become more competitive, and as more gas becomes available as
a result of the exploitation of unconventional natural gas resources in the USA and elsewhere. The impact
of such resources on the maritime LNG market is, however, difficult to predict, and the environmental
impacts of the extraction have been the subject of a heightened political and media debate (Howarth et al.,
2011). A further source of uncertainty is related to the development of regulation on the safety of the use
of LNG on-board maritime vessels. The International Code for Gas as Ship Fuel (IGF Code) is still being
discussed within the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), although the Interim Guidelines
MSC.285(86) have been issued by the Marine Safety Committee (MSC) in 2009. Shipowners willing to
invest in LNG as of today should not fear costly modifications to already retrofitted ships, once an IGF
code draft is agreed, as ships built following the Interim Guidelines will be allowed to operate. The only
complication, especially for vessels that call at many ports in different jurisdictions, is linked to the need
to notify and obtain permission from flag states and port states to operate the vessel (Germanischer Lloyd,
2012). Further guidelines have been developed by the major classification societies that are likely to be
considered in the development of the IGF Code. The final adoption of the IGF Code is though likely to
eliminate some of the regulatory uncertainty associated with the use of LNG as a ship fuel. Today only a
handful of ships is running on LNG in addition to approximately a hundred LNG carriers. It is natural that
such technology, compared to some 80–100.000 diesel fuelled ships, is yet to reach full maturity,
although ECA regulation might have an effect on favouring the development of the technology. This also
implies that the distribution network for LNG as a maritime fuel is limited to a few ports, mostly in
Norway. Several feasibility studies are on-going in the major harbours of the Hamburg–Le Havre range,
but LNG availability and prices are likely to remain rather different from country to country at least for a
while. Costs, availability and technical maturity appear to be the most critical issues for the success of
LNG as a maritime fuel on a large scale (Æsøy et al., 2011; Acciaro et al., 2013). Part of the uncertainty
might be resolved over time, but considering the information that is currently available, it is difficult to
develop a financial case for the large capital expenses associated with a LNG retrofit. The development of
an LNG market for maritime use, as well as the further and better understanding of the technical aspects
of the use of LNG on-board vessels are well underway, and in a few years it is feasible that there will be
an increase in the number of ships running on LNG. While on the one side, LNG is an attractive solution
for ECA compliance, a large degree of uncertainty remains on its economic attractiveness with respect to
other compliance alternatives and in view of the developments of the maritime fuel markets. ROA can
provide a valuable decision support aid to model strategic decisions involving the development of LNG
and other types of investment related to environmental compliance and energy efficiency.

Australia’s energy exports increase global greenhouse emissions, not

decrease them
When unveiling government data revealing Australia’s rising greenhouse emissions, federal energy
minister Angus Taylor sought to temper the news by pointing out that much of the increase is due to
liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, and claiming that these exports help cut emissions elsewhere.

LNG exports, Taylor argued, help to reduce global emissions by replacing the burning of coal overseas,
which has a higher emissions factor than gas. In reality, Australian gas displaces a mix of energy sources,
including gas from other exporters. Whether and to what extent Australian gas exports reduce emissions
therefore remains unclear. Meanwhile, Australia’s coal exports clearly do increase global emissions.

The way Australia can help clean up world energy systems in the future is through large-scale production
and export of renewable energy.

In a statement accompanying the latest quarterly emissions figures, the Department of Environment and
Energy stated:

Australia’s total LNG exports are estimated to have the potential to lower emissions in importing
countries by around 148Mt CO₂-e [million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent] in 2018, if they displace
coal consumption in those countries.
In truth, the assumption that every unit of Australia’s exported gas displaces coal is silly. The claim of a
148Mt saving is wrong and unfounded. The real number would be much smaller, and there could even be
an increase in emissions as a result of LNG exports.

For the most part, exported gas probably displaces natural gas that would otherwise be produced
elsewhere, leaving overall emissions roughly the same. Some smaller share may displace coal. But it
could just as easily displace renewable or nuclear energy, in which case Australian gas exports would
increase global emissions, not reduce them. LNG will be adopted as a marine fuel in the future. Because
LNG as alternative fuel due to its availability and environmental benefits such as reduction for the
emission of GHG.The study also showed that, LNG compliance with sulfur emission regulations, low-
sulfur fuels.

How much might gas exports really cut emissions?

Serious analysis would be needed to establish the true amount of emissions displaced by Australian gas. It
depends on the specific requirements that importers have, their alternatives for domestic energy
production and other imports, changes in relative prices, resulting changes in energy balances in third-
country markets, trajectories for investments in energy demand and supply infrastructure, and so forth. No
such analysis seems available.

But for illustration, let’s make an optimistic assumption that gas displaces twice as much coal as it does
renewable or nuclear energy. Specifically, let’s assume - purely for illustration - that each energy unit of
Australian exported LNG replaces 0.7 units of gas from elsewhere, 0.2 units of coal, and 0.1 units of
renewables or nuclear.

Australia exported 70 million tonnes of LNG in 2018. A Department of Environment and Energy

source told Guardian Australia that this amount of gas would emit 197 million tonnes of CO₂ when
burned. We calculate a similar number, on the basis of official emissions factors and export statistics.

Under the optimistic and illustrative set of assumptions outlined above, we calculate that Australia’s LNG
exports would have reduced emissions in importing countries by about 10 million tonnes of CO ₂ per year.
(See the end of the article for a summary of our calculations.)
They might equally have reduced emissions by less, or they might in fact have increased these countries’
emissions, if more renewables or nuclear was displaced than coal. But whatever the the actual number,
it’s certainly a long way short of the 148 million tonnes of emissions reduction claimed by the
government.

We also should consider the emissions within Australia of producing LNG. The national emissions
accounting shows that the increase in national emissions of 3.5 million tonnes of CO₂-e compared with
the year before is mostly because of a 22% increase in LNG exports. This means that LNG production in
Australia overall may be responsible for 16 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions per year.

A full analysis of global effects would also need to factor in the emissions that would be incurred from
the production of alternative energy sources displaced by Australia’s LNG.

Coal exports unambiguously raise emissions

The picture is more clear-cut for coal. If there was no Australian thermal coal (the type used in power
stations) in world markets, much of this would be replaced by more coal mined elsewhere. The remainder
would be replaced by gas, renewables or nuclear. As for the case of gas, the precise substitution effects
are a matter of complex interactions.

The crucial point is that all alternative fuels are less emissions-intensive than coal. In the substitution of
Australian-mined coal for coal from other sources, there could be some substitution towards coal with
higher emissions factors, but this is highly unlikely to outweigh the emissions savings from the
substitution to nuclear, renewables and gas.

So, removing Australian coal from the world market would reduce global emissions. Conversely, adding
Australian coal to the world market would increase global emissions.

Australia exported 208 million tonnes of thermal coal in 2018, which according to the official emissions
factors would release 506 million tonnes of CO₂ when burned. On top of this, Australia also exported 178
million tonnes of coking coal for steel production.

If a similar “replacement mix” assumed above for gas is also applied to coal – that is, every unit of coal is
replaced by 0.7 units of coal from elsewhere, 0.2 units of gas, and 0.1 units of renewables or nuclear –
then adding that thermal coal to the international market would increase emissions by about 19% of the
embodied emissions in that coal. As in the case of LNG, this is purely an illustrative assumption.

So, in this illustrative case, Australia’s thermal coal exports would increase net greenhouse emissions in
importing countries by about 96 million tonnes per year.

This figure does not consider the coking coal exports, nor the emissions from mining the coal in Australia
and transporting it.

The real opportunity is in export of renewable energy

Thankfully, there actually is a way for Australia to help the world cut emissions, and in a big way. That is
by producing large amounts of renewable energy for export, in the form of hydrogen, ammonia, and other
fuels produced using wind and solar power and shipped to other countries that are less blessed with
abundant renewable energy resources.

Even emissions-free production of energy-intensive goods like aluminium and steel could become cost-
competitive in Australia, given the ever-falling costs of renewable energy and the almost unlimited
potential to produce renewable energy in the outback. Australia really could be a renewable energy
superpower.

Such exports will then unambiguously reduce global emissions, because they will in part displace the use
of coal, gas and oil.

Once we have a large-scale renewable energy industry in operation, the relevant minister in office then
will be right to point out Australia’s contribution to solving the global challenge through our energy
exports. In the meantime, our energy exports are clearly a net addition to global emissions.

Summary of data and calculations

LNG emissions and displacement - illustrative scenario

Emissions inherent in Australia’s LNG exports of 69.5 million tonnes (in calendar year 2018) are 197
million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide, based on emissions factors published by the Australian
government.

If the same amount of energy was served using coal, emissions would be:

197Mt CO₂ + 148Mt CO₂ = 345Mt CO₂

Emissions under the mix assumed for illustration here would be:

0.7 x 197 (LNG) + 0.2 x 345 (coal) + 0.1 x 0 (renewables/nuclear) = 207Mt CO₂

That is 10Mt higher than without Australian LNG.

Coal emissions and displacement - illustrative scenario

Australia’s thermal coal exports were 208Mt in calendar year 2018. Emissions when burning this coal
were 506Mt CO₂, based on government emissions factors.

Assuming typical emissions factors for fuel use in electricity generation of 0.9 tonnes of CO₂ per
megawatt-hour (MWh) from black coal and 0.5 tonnes of CO₂ per MWh from gas, the emissions intensity
of electricity generation under the mix assumed for illustration here would be:

0.7 x 0.9 (coal) + 0.2 x 0.5 (gas) + 0.1 x 0 (renewables/nuclear) = 0.73 tonnes CO₂ per MWh

This is 19% lower than the emissions intensity of purely coal-fired electricity, of 0.9 tonnes CO₂ per
MWh.

19% of 506Mt CO₂ is 96Mt CO₂

Emerging LNG-fueled ships in the Chinese shipping industry: a hybrid
analysis on its prospects
Author: Di Zhang.

With the prosperity of global shipping industry, a variety of shipping-induced environmental problems
and increasingly rigid emission restrictions have drawn more attention to an emerging marine fuel—
liquefied natural gas (LNG), a clean and efficient energy that conforms to the essence of green shipping.
Although with superiority using onboard, there are only fewer than 40 fully LNG-fueled ships in service
worldwide by June 2013, and the quantity of LNG-fueled ships in operation is even much lower in China.
Moreover, the majority of those in China are inland ships, which mainly navigate along the Yangtze
River and canals. By using the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis in
combination with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), this paper analyzes the development prospect of
LNG-fueled ships in inland waterway transportation in China, aiming to fill the gaps of inadequate
understanding of the new marine energy. This paper offers some insight on the prospects of the
application of LNG in the Chinese shipping industry and simultaneously provides useful information to
stakeholders and policy makers for decision-making on the development of LNG-fueled ships.

According to the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), about 90 % of world trade volume is carried
by ships (ICS 2013a). Indeed, shipping has been considered as a very important pillar of economic
development since the eighteenth century (Cheng et al. 2013). Apart from the decline in international
trade due to the economic downturn which took place in 2008, world seaborne trade has shown a trend of
steady growth in the past decade (Fig. 1). The significant role that shipping plays in the Chinese economy
is even more obvious, covering about 93 % of China’s international trade, 95 % of crude oil trade, and
99 % of iron ore trade.

The prosperity of the shipping industry has been inducing a high demand for maritime bunker fuel while
at the same time accelerating the deterioration of our environment. According to the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), in 2007, international shipping was responsible for approximately 870
million tons of CO2 emission (around 2.7 % of the global emission) (IMO 2009) and the amount is
expected to grow as a result of the shipping industry development if no further emission control measures
are going to take place. Therefore, the mitigation of environmental impact and reduction of energy
consumption are urgently required, while gaining the benefits from shipping industry. Green shipping has
emerged showing higher priority to energy efficiency improvement of ships via advanced vessel design
and management, rather than simply increasing the scale of ship fleets.

Although there is no general definition for green shipping, its core idea is to achieve the goal of
sustainable economy development by keeping a balance between productivity gain and environmental
protection (Cheng et al. 2013). This has been well acknowledged among shipping companies and policy
makers alike. On July 10, 2012, the China Classification Society (CCS) has promulgated a specification
focusing on the energy efficiency, environmental protection, and working environment of ships,
namely Rules for Green Ships, which was published on October 1, 2012. It aims to “Achieve the goals of
low consumption, low emissions, low pollution and comfortable working environment for ships”
(CSC 2012). Among the clean energy utilization technologies, an important topic that has been attracting
attention these years is the study of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a marine fuel.
However, the calorific value of mixing gas composed of LNG and air is about 10.5  % lower than the
composition of diesel and air, leading to a certain power coastdown of transformed dual fuel engines
(Dong 2011). Taking the calorific value as an index for comparison of power performance, the low
calorific value of LNG is 33.75 MJ/m3 while that of 0# diesel oil is 38.44 MJ/L, so the amount of LNG
needed to achieve the same power performance as 1  L 0# diesel oil does is about 1.14 m3, which will be
more if combustion efficiency is counted. This can be one of the main reasons to blunt the price
advantages of LNG. Beyond that, the fluctuant price (differential) is easily affected by various external
factors, which make it difficult to be assessed. Thus, LNG’s major advantages lie in environmental
protection and the improvement of working environment rather than energy efficiency in the view of
green shipping. Moreover, due to inherent property (virtually no sulfur content) and superior combustion
performance that reduces the generation of nitrogen oxides (NO  x ) by 85–90 % and carbon dioxide (CO2)
by 20–25 % compared with heavy fuel oil (Heir et al. 2011), LNG enables ships to meet the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI’s requirements for both
worldwide trade and operation in the Emission Control Areas Footnote1 (ECAs) without further post
treatment. LNG’s superiority as a preferable alternative to traditional marine fuels has been further
illustrated in researches (Nikopoulou et al. 2013; Acciaro 2014), with emphasis toward lessening
environmental impact, compliance with more stringent regulations, or financial concerns. Although LNG
was first put in use on LNG carriers in the 1960s (Burel et al. 2013), it has not been applied to other types
of ships as a main propulsion fuel until 2000, and this delay is even more explicit in China. The existing
reviews on the application of LNG in Chinese transportation industry are mainly about generic LNG-
powered vehicles (e.g., Ma et al. 2013) or some specific parts of LNG industry, like LNG plants and
receiving terminals (e.g., Shi et al. 2010; Lin et al. 2010). There is a scarcity of studies on the
development of LNG as a marine fuel, especially in China.
Therefore, the aim of this article is to investigate (1) what is the current development of LNG-fueled ships
in China and (2) how to evaluate its prospects. For these purposes, a quantitative analysis on the
development prospect of LNG-fueled ships in inland waterways of China is conducted using a hybrid
method of SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) and AHP (analytic hierarchy
process). The key factors that influence the development of LNG in Chinese shipping industry are
identified in order to provide useful information on this emerging marine fuel for the stakeholders and
policy makers. This work would contribute to the research on LNG as a fuel for ships and provide
significant reference on the evaluation of its development prospect.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the current development of LNG-
fueled ships in China as well as experimental results of China’s first diesel-LNG dual-fueled ship in
inland waterways. Section 3 develops a hybrid method with combination of AHP and SWOT framework
in order to achieve practicability of prospect analysis. The advantages of the newly reformed approach are
analyzed and discussed in this section. By using the AHP-SWOT method, section 4 analyzes the
development perspective of LNG-fueled ships in Chinese shipping industry followed by a discussion of
validity of calculation results. Finally, the paper is concluded in section 5.

By using the AHP-SWOT method, this paper investigates the potential of LNG-fueled ships in China
with respect to its strengths and weakness, as well as opportunities and threats. A growth-oriented trend
of the use of LNG in Chinese shipping industry is shown, which reveals that the application of LNG
onboard ships, as a green energy in marine industry, has a bright prospect in China. However, the threats
and weaknesses identified in this paper should not be overlooked; otherwise, the development speed and
efficiency will be hindered. For strategic development, it is recommended that stakeholders should not
only focus on the opportunities and its advantages of LNG-fueled ships in China but also mitigate the
threats and overcome weaknesses for the industrialization of LNG-fueled ships in China.
The results obtained from the analysis in this paper should provide very useful information for
stakeholders and policy makers of the Chinese shipping industry. Meanwhile, given the increasing
complexity of shipping situations which involve multiple influencing factors, the method utilized in this
study can be further applied either to develop new strategies, or as a stand-alone technique to prioritize
existing strategies through pairwise comparison. In practice, this work provide a reference of
identification of factors with the highest importance degree, which in turn helps to improve the
investment allocation and achieve the goal of steady and efficient development of this new maritime
energy in Chinese shipping industry. Moreover, the evaluation results, to some extent, are in accordance
with the current situation in China, which shows a fair reasonableness of using this hybrid method in the
prospect analysis of LNG-fueled ships in China. It is worth noting that the current method and research
findings can be further optimized and improved when more data or judgments from experts are obtained
and incorporated, so as to conduct a more comprehensive analysis. With this work’s foundation, similar
processes can be conducted in the prospect analysis of using LNG as a marine fuel in other countries as
well.

Emission Control Areas (ECAs) are sea areas in which stricter controls were established to minimize
airborne emissions like SO x and NO x from ships. As of 2011, there were four existing ECAs including the
Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the North American ECA (most of US and Canadian coast and the US
Caribbean ECA included).

Effects of fuel-specific energy and operational demands on cost/ emission

estimates: A case study on heavy fuel-oil vs liquefied natural gas
 Maritime industry is in constant pursuit of viable alternatives in order to comply with present and
imminent regulations which address pollution by marine fuels. Cost/emission estimates, which determine
the efficacy of compliance options, rely heavily on bottom-up methodologies for estimating fuel
consumptions. These methodologies employ representative databases for their estimates instead of actual
in-situ data. The use of in-situ data is therefore of paramount importance for accuracy of end results on
which industry-wide strategic decisions are based. Moreover, total fuel consumption of a potential
alternative is calculated simply using energy conversion factors in comparison to a conventional fuel.
However, each compliance-option comprises of unique process-components which demand diverse
operational, electrical and heating energy requirements which in turn alter their fuel consumptions and
emission inventories. Therefore, each compliance-pathway should be assessed individually using in-situ
data in order to estimate fuel consumptions and emission inventories rather than using energy conversion
factors between them. A case study which utilizes in-situ data is conducted to assess the effect of fuel-
specific processes on energy/operational demand and the emission estimates between residual heavy
fueloils and liquefied natural-gas for a bulk carrier. The findings reveal that allocation and apportion of
fuel-specific electrical/heating energy demands as well as operational components to each compliance
option would produce more accurate emission estimates as well as realistic cost comparisons. Moreover,
the study endorses that the use of natural gas as a marine fuel is highly commendable and asserts that in
fact more emission reductions can be achieved than previously estimated.

Continual use of residual marine fuels is met with vigorous control measures from national and
international regulatory bodies due to their polluting nature (Winebrake et al., 2009; OECD/ITF, 2016).
International maritime organization’s (IMO) international convention for the prevention of pollution from
ships (MARPOL) regulations, and their Annex-VI in particular, pursue to curb marine emissions by; (a)
stricter controls in ECA’s and (b) worldwide regulations declaring sulphur content in fuel and NOX
emission limits (Eyring et al., 2010). Impending global rules to reduce sulphur content in marine fuel to
0.5% by 2020 (MEPC 72/18, 2016; MEPC 72/7, 2017) demand the industry to adopt stricter compliant
options and setup appropriate infrastructures. Even with the stipulated sulphur cap coming into effect in
2020, the fact that marine fuel quality standards would still be far behind those of road and aviation
transport sectors, will continue to exert more pressure on the industry and its governing bodies in years to
come. For example, 10 ppm sulphur limit for automotive diesel fuel, from 01 January 2009, as opposed to
5000 ppm for marine fuels, from 01 January 2020. In addition, IMO’s EEDI and SEEMP regulations
endeavour to control CO2 emissions and reduce carbon footprint of shipping with longterm objectives.
Control measures on BC and PM are expected to follow suit in the near future (Merien-Paul, Enshaei and
Jayasinghe, 2016; IMO, 2016). It is noted that fuel consumption represents a major quotient of annual
expenses of a vessel; which is up to 54% for container vessels and 40% for dry bulk vessels and 33% for
tankers respectively (OECD/ITF, 2016). Therefore, expected and potential future regulations demand due
diligence from “stakeholders” to pursue cost-effective and long-term compliance strategies with foresight.
While emission efficacy is assessed by comparing fuel consumptions and respective emission inventories,
economic viability of a compliance option is appraised generally using payback periods in terms of
estimating capital and operational expenditures. Determining capital expenditure for an alternative is
relatively upfront as the quotations and expenses are readily available for alternatives. However,
estimating operational expenditure is a complex issue due to apportioning costs for fuel consumptions as
each alternative carries unique process components which are specific to its fuel and/or approach.
Process-specific components are requirements such as heating/electricity energy demands and operational
requirements which are specific for a compliant fuel option or methodology. This paper explores the
available literature on norms/studies of comparing effectiveness between compliance options with regard
to their economic and emission performance. The present authors (Merien-Paul et al., 2018) addressed the
issues of relying on representative data bases instead of in-situ data for estimation of fuel consumptions
and emission inventories in bottom-up methodologies. This study focuses on onboard processes specific
or unique to a fuel type or a compliance option and their influence on heating, electrical and operational
demands on a ship. A case study is conducted using in-situ data to ascertain how fuel/process-specific
components influence the cost and emission estimates among selected compliance options for meeting
global sulphur cap in 2020. Inclusion of such essential components in conjunction with in-situ data
represents realistic processes on ships and produces more accurate results.

There are a number of compliant options available for emission reductions; such as use of low
sulphur fuel oils (LSFO) or liquefied natural gas (LNG), heavy fuel oil (HFO) with scrubber and selective
catalytic reactor (SCR), humid air motor, exhaust gas recirculation and direct water injection (DNV-GL,
2015a). In view of the imminent global sulphur cap in 2020 and the trends in the maritime industry
(DNV-GL, 2016), it is assumed that the most suited options are: (a) LSFO, (b) LNG, and (c) HFO with
scrubber technology. Scrubber technologies allow continual use of high sulphur residual fuels (HFO) as
sulphur components are “scrubbed-off” of flue gasses by sea water. In open-loop scrubbers, naturally
occurring CaCO3 of sea water reacts with flue gasses to neutralise acidic sulphur components. Upon
completion of the neutralisation process, resultant sludge precipitations are removed and directed to
sludge processing units, and the tart water is discharged back to the sea (OECD/ITF, 2016). This system
requires large amounts of sea water to bring down sulphur contents of exhaust gasses to compliant levels
and sludge generated from scrubber process is noted to be 15 kg/h for a 20 MW, 2-stroke main engine at
70% load (Hagström and Koneru, 2013). Closed-loop scrubbers absorb sulphur components and the
residues are retained on-board for disposal to shore reception facilities at convenient ports. Hence, open-
loop variety is considered more suited for deep sea-going vessels whereas closed-loop version is apt for
vessel trading in ecologically sensitive sea areas. Use of low sulphur fuel oils; such as low sulphur
MDO/MGO and LNG are considered as other reliable alternatives to comply with new regulations (DNV-
GL, 2013; Lloyd's Register Marine, 2014). Low sulphur MDO/MGO is regarded as the immediate
solution for conformity during the enforcement of sulphur cap in 2020. However, its projected price
trends are likely to discourage any long-term dependency (Chryssakis et al., 2015; Semolinos, 2013). In
addition, there are challenges with regard to supply logistics and refinery capacities that should be
resolved for MDO/MGO to be readily available to cater the post-2020 demand globally (BP, 2016; DNV-
GL, 2016). Although new emission regulations initiate the quest for compliance options, comparison of
enduring economic feasibility between the alternatives will take precedence in final investment decisions.
Shipping being a conservative industry, change is often slow and incremental due to well established
norms and the need for large capital expenditures. Therefore, retrofit with scrubbers and continual use of
cheaper residual fuels for deep-sea voyages and low sulphur MDO/MGO for coastal passages are
considered to be the preferred option which could nearly maintain “near status-quo” conditions for the
owners and operators. Natural gas has been used for propulsion for over last 60 years (IMO, 2016;
Einang, 2007) on LNG carriers as boil-off-gas. However, it has recently captured the attention of marine
industry for propelling non-gas-carrying vessels due to its cleaner emissions compared with the
conventional marine fuels. LNG produces less SOX, NOX and CO2 and virtually zero per cent black
carbon (DNVGL, 2014). Moreover, the emergence of LNG in European ECA’s and in Norway as a viable
option has further highlighted its potential in a future of strict emission regimes (Shroder et al., 2011;
DNV-GL, 2016).
 LNG fuelled propulsion systems of similar capacity are chosen and compared against
conventional HFO systems. A similar HFO system with a scrubber technology for reduction of SOX
emissions is also considered for comparison. Although there are a number of abatement methods for
reducing various marine emissions, focus is given only to SOX reduction considering upcoming global
sulphur cap regulations in 2020. An open loop scrubber system is chosen as it requires no consumables or
storage systems and therefore suitable for long sea passages typical for capesize bulk carriers. Data for the
LNG system is obtained from a contemporary project in Australia and power/system requirements are
conceptually matched to those of the reference vessel. Moreover, in addition to dual fuel engine
arrangement (i.e. LNG and pilot MDO), a lean-burn LNG engine arrangement is of similar capacity is
included in estimates and comparisons. Assuming that operational expenditure of common machinery and
systems are equal, the study aims to differentiate fuel-specific demands of energy, operational loading
and emission inventories between competing compliance options. Once fuel consumptions are established
for each alternative considering fuel-specific processes as well as common consumptions, emissions
inventories are produced using standardised EF tables adapted from (IMO, 2014).

The use of natural gas as a marine fuel is highly commendable and asserts that more CO2
reductions can be achieved than previously estimated. In addition, LNG use has the potential to reduce
operational loading and process-specific fuel consumptions compared to HFO with scrubber systems.
Moreover, LNG use can reduce consumption of cylinder lube oil and associated emissions. Considering
the significant quantities of cylinder lube-oils are consumed, their cost and potential effects of their
emissions need to be further studied. The primary focus being the global sulphur cap in 2020, the
potential of future NOX requirements is not considered for the study as the vessel in question is operated
between Japan and Australia. However, if IMO Tier-III NOX regulations are to be enforced, a suitable
abatement technology, its operational and power requirements, should be investigated for HFO with
scrubber and LNG dual fuel systems.

The LNG Market: A Game Theoretic Approach to Competition in LNG

Shipping

By: Konstantinos G Gkonis

The Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) trade is one of the most promising sectors in energy shipping. It is
expected that competition will increasingly develop in the shipping segment of the LNG chain, which at
least in its first phases will have the characteristics of an oligopolistic market. The LNG shipping market
context is appropriate for the adoption of a (non-cooperative) game theoretic analysis framework to
support decision-making. This paper focuses on oligopolistic competition in LNG shipping over the
transportation capacity supplied to a trade route by competing shipping companies. It also examines the
possibility of non-cooperative collusion among the competing parties, in order for them to share higher
profits. The conclusions concern the optimal level of capacity supply by the competitors, under certain
interaction settings, and the conditions under which they can sustain Pareto efficient equilibria.

The Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) trade is without doubt one of the most interesting areas in energy
shipping, dominating the world bulk maritime transport. Recently, market developments have attracted
companies and investors who are only now discovering its special characteristics and potential.

Meeting the world’s energy demands is one of the greatest challenges for the twenty-first century and, in
many respects, natural gas (NG) is considered as the successor of oil. Maritime transport, a pillar of world
trade, is expected to stand up to the challenges ahead. Indeed, while for many decades NG markets were
localised and isolated, the LNG trade (that is the transport of NG by sea) has contributed to the
development of a global competitive market (Foss, 2005) which presents similarities to the oil market, yet
many differences as well. The paper focuses on oligopolistic competition in LNG shipping, and
specifically on competition over the capacity supplied to a market by LNG shipping companies.
Competition over price is briefly considered too. Also, the possibility of non-cooperative collusion among
the competing players, in order to share higher profits, is examined. The present section introduces the
reader to the developments taking place in the LNG market and its dynamics.

The reduction in the volume of NG, when liquefied, allows its transport as LNG on economically
competitive terms compared to pipelines. Especially for transport over long distances (of the order of
3000 miles or more, see Jensen, 2004), LNG is the advantageous option. Moreover, LNG allows trade
among areas which otherwise would be technically or politically impossible to connect (IELE, 2003). In
its first stages, the LNG trade was taking place over specific routes, with ships fixed under long-term
contracts. These attributes started changing in the end of 1990s. The development of the international
LNG trade was favoured by the turn to NG for electricity production, in order to meet the ever growing
demand across developed and developing countries. NG-powered stations present economic advantages,
are faster to build and are more environmentally friendly, when compared to electricity production from
other fossil fuels. Moreover, NG can be burned directly as a fuel in the industrial and the household
sectors with very high efficiency and minimal losses. Significant cost reductions have been achieved in
all stages of the LNG chain, with technological improvements (see Figure 3, where the evolution of
newbuilding costs for a typical LNG vessel are shown). Moreover, contract terms had to become more
elastic, in order to accommodate the need for greater flexibility in meeting the increasing demand.
Gradually, a part of the market started to operate on competitive terms and to promise increasing returns.
Last, but not least, LNG fits well in the security of supply considerations of national energy planning
through the diversification of energy supply and sources (Gkonis and Psaraftis, 2008a).

The LNG trade started in the 1960s with a limited number of sailings towards European markets, soon
moving to the Asia-Pacific area. As already mentioned, in its first decades this trade presented a rigid
structure. Although most of the LNG trade is still taking place on ‘inelastic’ terms, a growing short-term,
spot, market currently represents 10–15 per cent of the total market (PE, 2007a; SE, 2008a). In this
regard, it is not unusual for cargoes to be diverted from their original destinations to take advantage of
arbitrage opportunities, according to market conditions and prices. The NG prices (traditionally linked to
oil prices) are increasingly indexed to NG reference prices (that is, gas-to-gas competition develops,
where NG prices are decoupled from oil prices, see Jensen, 2004). An LNG carrier is a technologically
sophisticated ship, with double-hull special design and insulated storage tanks with metallurgical
properties that allow them to withstand very low temperatures. The average size of an LNG vessel has
increased in the last years and it is currently about 150 000 cu.m.1 (that is, about 60 000 tonnes of LNG
or 0.09 bcm2 of NG). As of July 2008, the building cost of such a ship was in the region of US$225
million. At the same time, the world fleet counted 307 ships and the orderbook 119 ships (SE, 2008b).
Figure 4 shows the dramatic increase in the number of LNG vessels of the world fleet and the
proportionally significant size of the orderbook from 1990 to 2008.

The long-term contracts between suppliers and importers will continue to dominate the international LNG
trade, but they will increasingly become more flexible allowing cargoes to be traded in a growing short-
term market. In the traditional market model, the basic players in LNG shipping were integrated energy
majors and national companies. The cost reductions and the versatility required by the market, in response
to increased demand and new conditions in the international energy scene, opened up the ‘LNG club’ to
independent shipowners and other investors. Especially independent tanker owners showed great interest.
The newcomers to the market currently own 10 per cent of the world fleet. Their share is expected to rise
as they represent 25 per cent of orders (SE, 2007), many of which are uncommitted vessels to be launched
in the short-term/high-returns market (see Gkonis and Psaraftis (2008b) for an analysis of the strategic
rationale behind such decisions)

The LNG trade is growing rapidly in the Atlantic Basin market which is likely to overtake the Asia-
Pacific one. Large NG fields are to be exploited in the Arctic zone by Russia and Norway (LL, 2007).
Russia, also with the development of its fields in Siberia, may play a role in the NG market, similar to that
of Saudi Arabia in the oil market (Chevalier, 2004). The Middle East (especially Qatar) will enhance its
exporting role to both the Atlantic and Asia-Pacific market (PE, 2007b). Moreover, the energy demand in
China and India will create new challenges. Security of supply considerations, through the diversification
of sources, will influence the choices for the supply of energy to markets around the globe in the coming
years. In this dynamic environment, the traditional players in energy shipping, the independent tanker
owners, are trying to position themselves. Investments in LNG shipping are capital intensive and
relatively few and large players are able to enter and stay in the market. Consequently, the decisions of a
market player are likely to influence to a significant degree the position of other players; therefore
strategic decision-making is crucial at this stage. Because of its distinctive idiosyncrasies, methodologies
applicable to other shipping markets fail to support decision-making in the LNG shipping business. The
LNG shipping market context is appropriate for the adoption of a game theoretic analysis framework, as it
was argued in Gkonis and Psaraftis (2007). It is expected that competition will increasingly develop
especially in the shipping segment of the LNG chain, which at least in its first phases will have the
characteristics of an oligopolistic market.

LNG market was provided and, more specifically, the developments in its shipping segment were
discussed. LNG shipping is a specialised bulk trade in energy shipping. Compared to its parent markets,
the oil trade and the onshore gas markets, it differs substantially, because of its limited fluidity and
because it is not expected to reach similar levels of mature competition in the near future. However, its
growth rate and the entry of new players, with the adoption of more flexible terms of operation, make this
sector a most promising area in the shipping industry. The focus in this paper was placed on the
possibility of oligopolistic capacity competition in LNG shipping.

In the changing environment of the LNG market, new entrants, such as the independent oil tanker
companies, are opting to capture a share in its trade routes. Strategic decision-making is crucial and this
paper proposes game theory as a support tool. The considered models (as any model) present limitations
and rely on imposed assumptions, for example, regarding the relation of the market price to total capacity
supply. However, the main purpose here has not been to provide readily usable results for real-world
applications, but to introduce a new analysis rationale and demonstrate the potential usefulness of game
theory as a supplement to the intuition of market players, as it helps in identifying right strategies given
certain conditions.

LNG-Fuelled Engines and Fuel Systems for Medium-Speed Engines in

Maritime Applications
By: Vilmar Aesoy

The maritime transportation sector is facing new international restrictions on exhaust emissions. NOx and
SOx emissions from traditional marine fuels are a major challenge, which make natural gas a promising
new clean alternative. Since the late 1980s, new concepts for medium-speed natural gas-fuelled engines
have been developed, primarily for stationary power generation. This technology is currently entering the
mobile sector, where Spark Ignition engines, Dual-Fuel engines and High Pressure Gas engines offer
advantages such as high efficiency, low emissions and fuel flexibility. The availability of liquefied natural
gas (LNG) is increasing, not least via small-scale distribution systems. In Norway, 23 coastal traffic
vessels operate on LNG supplied by a distribution system that also supplies city bus fleets. This paper
discusses the development of natural gas engines and fuel system technology, and describes experiences
from LNG-fuelled ships in operation in Norway.

A sharpening focus on the environment and scenarios for primary energy supply are emphasizing the
need for alternative fuels in the transportation sector. The International Energy Agency (IEA) prognosis
[1] indicates that liquid fuel production based on known resources will decrease by 50% in the next 20-30
years, while demand is expected to increase by 50%. In this scenario, new alternative energy sources will
have to fill the widening gap between supply and demand for traditional liquid fuels. This scenario will
also drive the market towards significant fuel price increase, which then will open for more expensive
alternatives. International shipping is by far the most energy efficient mode of transportation, and marine
diesel engines are among the most efficient energy converters available. Nonetheless, international
shipping is a significant contributor to global and regional air pollution. Emissions from shipping have
been estimated in a number of studies with different results [2],[3],[4]. The most recent IMO study
estimates that 1050 million tones of CO2 are emitted annually by shipping. Although this is only 3-4% of
global CO2 emissions, there is no disagreement regarding the fact that emissions from ships are
increasing rapidly, as a result of growth in world trade, given that 80-90% of all trade is carried by sea.
The relative contribution of shipping to local and global emissions is increasing, since emissions from
land-based sources are being reduced by investments in exhaust gas cleaning technology. Figure 1
compares the development of SOx emissions from shipping and land-based sources.

LNG AS MARINE FUEL - EXPERIENCE The first LNG-fuelled ships were LNG carriers, which have
been in operation since 1964. Boil-off gas (BOG) from these vessels’ LNG cargo tanks was utilized as an
additional propulsion fuel, instead of releasing the gas to the atmosphere or installing complex re-
condensation plants. These ships were all steam turbine-driven, and extra gas burners were installed in the
steam boilers. Later, and due to the low efficiency of steam propulsion systems, more efficient gas-
burning internal combustion engines began to be developed in the 1980s [5]. The first natural gas-fuelled
ships utilized compressed natural gas (CNG). Around 10 ships currently operate on CNG. These include
three tourist boats in Russia, two canal boats in Netherlands, one bulk carrier in Australia, two ferries in
Canada and one river boat in the USA [6]. In 2000 the first LNG-fuelled ship MF Glutra entered service
on the coast of Norway [7]. In this first project, compressed natural gas (CNG) was evaluated as an
alternative for the fuel system. However, weight, cost and safety factors strongly favored LNG.
Pressurized gas tanks are a major safety concern, and only storage in safe zones above the main deck is
normally approved. Storage tank weight and dimensions give LNG a clear advantage in terms of storage
and transportation efficiency. The conclusion is that CNG may be an alternative on board vessels with
low fuel capacity requirements, while LNG is normally the preferred choice for larger systems. The AVL
study [8] also concluded that LNG is the preferred fuel for long-haul trucks, since it has a significantly
higher energy density, which means smaller and lighter fuel-tanks. Since 2000, 23 LNG ships have come
into service on the coast of Norway (Table 1). Most of these are car/passenger ferries (Figure 3) operating
on short fjord routes, typically 15-45 minutes crossing time. The other LNG vessels are also short-sea
shipping vessels, operating on regular round-trip routes. The ferries are 100% LNG-fuelled, while most of
the other vessels have dual-fuel (DF) systems. The main challenges in designing these ships concern their
LNG fuel system. Well-proven cryogenic technology from industrial installations has been modified to
ensure safe operation. Safety has been the major design issue, focusing on physical arrangements,
explosion-proofing, extended ventilation, double walled gas pipe work and operational procedures.
NATURAL GAS FUELLED MARINE ENGINES Twenty-five years of research and development on
natural gas-fuelled marine engines have turned LNG into an excellent fuel alternative. The high methane
content of LNG offers excellent ignition and combustion qualities for medium- and slow-speed engines.
“Slow” combustion rate and high auto-ignition temperatures offer the benefits of high compression ratios;
higher thermal efficiency, and cleaner emissions. Gas-fuelled engines can be divided into two categories.
The first includes simple retrofitted diesel engines, on which a “gas conversion kit” is installed and the
main parts of the engine are kept more or less standard as for diesel. The second category comprises
specially designed engines for natural gas. Marine gas engines can be sorted into three groups: Otto-cycle
– Lean-Burn engines (LBSI) Dual-Fuel engines (DF) - operating as Otto-cycle on gas and Diesel-cycle on
diesel oil or HFO Diesel-cycle – High-pressure gas injection (GD) Only the LBSI involves the pure gas-
fuelled engine concept, while DF and GD engines require a 1-5% injection of diesel fuel for ignition
assistance.

Natural gas engine performance Engine efficiencies for LNG-fuelled marine engines are good. Some
highly optimized LBSI and DF engines, demonstrate even higher efficiencies than the corresponding
diesel engine. Shaft efficiency as high as 48% have been measured under optimum load conditions [10].
Figure 9 compares natural gas combustion in an optimized engine process with the original diesel
combustion process.

Natural gas engine emissions LNG is a pure fuel burning with low emissions. Due to the H/C ratio of 4:1
compared to standard liquid petroleum fuels, which have a H/C ratio closer to 2:1, methane combustion
products will contain more H2O and less CO2. Results of laboratory tests at MARINTEK and field
measurements on board ships in operation show reductions in CO2 of 20% to almost 30%, depending on
engine efficiency (Figure 12). There is also a significant reduction in NOx emissions, mainly due to the
lean combustion. Premixed combustion in LBSI and DF engines may offer a 75-90% reduction of NOx.
For the GD cycle, the lower local air/fuel ratio in the diffusion flame offers a slightly lower NOx
reduction than premixed combustion. SOx and particulate matter (PM) are reduced to zero in the pure gas
combustion in the LBSI engine. In GD Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota,
Thursday, August 02, 2018 and DF engines, there will always be residual amounts of these pollutants due
to the 1-5% pilot diesel for ignition. Table 2 summarizes the emission reduction factors.

Comparing natural gas fuelled engines Each gas engine concept has different properties, and the
application involved will favor one concept over the other. Compared to diesel engines operating on
MDO and HFO, gas engine emissions are extremely low, and complex and expensive exhaust-gas
cleaning systems can be avoided. The cleaner exhaust gas also means that simpler ways of recovering
waste heat from gas engines can be used. Downloaded from SAE International by University of
Minnesota, Thursday, August 02, 2018 Among the main issues that have still to be resolved is gas fuel
quality, where different engine concepts offer different degrees of robustness to handle variations. Table 4
illustrates some typical properties that are used to compare the different gas engine concepts.

LNG is a very promising alternative marine fuel. LNG-fuelled ships are already a reality, based on
relatively well-proven gas engine technologies combined with continuously developing LNG fuel
systems. Well-proven gas engine technology offers significant reductions in emissions compared to
traditional marine fuels. NOx are reduced by up to 90 %, CO2 by up to 30% and SOx and particulates by
nearly 100%. The engine design challenges are mainly related to part loads, variable loads and variable
LNG composition. LNG-fuelled ships currently require an additional capital investment of approximately
8-15%, mainly due to the fuel systems and arrangement. This must be balanced against operational cost
savings. On the basis of the expected price of LNG compared to oil, we may expect significant fuel cost
savings using LNG. Further operational cost savings can be obtained through emission taxes.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Thursday, August 02, 2018 The most
important technical challenges are related to fuel systems. More cost-effective tank systems will have to
be developed. Larger tank systems for ships in longer operational cycles are needed if LNG is to enter the
main shipping market. Building fuel infrastructure and developing efficient LNG bunkering logistics
systems will also be a critical success factor. In the meantime, LNG is primarily interesting in a regional
shipping context, where the ship’s range is less of an issue and the next bunkering port is predictable and
close at hand. LNG alone cannot solve the maritime fuel and emission challenge. However, LNG can
contribute significantly to local and regional environmental problems, and for short-sea and coastal
shipping it can also be cost-effective compared to traditional marine fuels.
Environmental and economical benefits of changing from marine diesel oil to
natural-gas fuel for short-voyage high-power passenger ships
By: A A Banawan , M M El Gohary , and I S Sadek

Although the actual level of marine air pollution is unclear, the contribution of ships to global emissions
can be roughly indicated as being in the following ranges: nitrogen oxides (NOx), 10–20 per cent; carbon
dioxide (CO2), 2–4 per cent; sulphur oxides (SOx), 4–8 per cent. Several studies, which aim to minimize
and reduce the maritime environmental pollution by the gas emissions from ships, have shown that there
are different methods by which this can be achieved. This paper shows that the use of natural gas as the
main fuel on board ships is considered to be the optimum selection for this purpose as regards the
environmental and economic issues. A short-voyage ship of high power rating is deemed to be suitable
for naturalgas application to obtain the maximum environmental and economic benefits. As a case study,
this paper discusses the environmental and the economic benefits of using natural gas as an alternative to
diesel oil on board one of the high-speed passenger ships operating in the Red Sea area between Egypt
and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The study illustrated that NOx, SOx, particulate matter, and CO2
emissions were reduced by 72 per cent, 91 per cent, 85 per cent, and 10 per cent respectively. In addition,
the cost of both fuel consumption and maintenance operation demonstrated reductions by 39 per cent and
40 per cent respectively.

Until 1995, dealing with the marine pollution problem had focused only on water pollution. By the end of
the twentieth century a new issue had surfaced: air pollution which has become about 4 per cent of the
total global air pollution. For this reason the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has issued Annex
VI for MARPOL, which is referred to as MARPOL 73/78/95. (MARPOL is the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL being an abbreviation of marine pollution), and 73,
78, and 95 indicate the years 1973, 1978, and 1995 respectively.) To comply with this issue, several
methods have been employed to eliminate exhaust gas emissions. These methods have largely contributed
to reducing air pollution. However, in order to reach the new limits set by the IMO regarding the
allowable amount of gas emissions, as shown in Fig. 1 [1], it will be very expensive, adding new financial
costs to the ships’ operation, especially with the increase in high-quality fuel prices. That is why it is
highly important for all who are interested in the shipping industry to search for other methods. One of
the method to achieve the environmental benefits by reducing emissions while keeping the operation
costs, including fuel and maintenance costs, as low as possible at the same time

In the last few decades, various technologies have been applied to reduce the amount of exhaust gas
emissions which result from ships. Some of these are related to cleaning the exhaust gases before they are
emitted to the atmosphere, such as selective catalytic reduction, exhaust gas recirculation, and catalysed
particulate filters. Other technologies are concerned with improving both the combustion process and the
power plant efficiency, such as combustion optimization, advanced fuel injection controls, improvement
in the charge air characteristics, electronically controlled direct water injection, and waste heat recovery.
In addition, using a high-quality marine diesel oil such as low-sulphur fuel has contributed to achieving
this objective [2]. Applying these technologies on board ships revealed that there are two main problems.
First, using a low-sulphur fuel will be very costly especially with the expected increase in the price of
marine diesel oil in the near future, as shown in Second, to achieve reduction in both SOx and NOx
emissions, additional operating costs will be incurred. This makes the use of the previous emissions
reduction technologies uneconomic. Research on this issue has shown a great potential for ships fuelled
by alternative fuels to be environmentally friendly and economical

The main alternative marine fuel types may be found in two forms: liquid fuels including ethanol,
methanol, bioliquid fuel, and biodiesel; and gaseous fuels, including propane, hydrogen, and natural gas
(NG). Despite the fact that all these fuels are more environmentally friendly than diesel oils, some are still
difficult to apply extensively on board ships because of the problem of low energy content, e.g. methanol
and ethanol Other possible marine fuels have limited applications owing to the problems of price and
storage on board ships, e.g. hydrogen, since it has to be liquefied . The weighting matrix given in Table 1
may be used to determine the optimum selection of alternative fuel. The matrix indicates that NG is the
best alternative fuel for marine applications. This is due to its moderate cost, availability, and adaptability
for existing engines.

LNG as a fuel is well established in the urban transport and power generation sectors, and this technology
will be transferred to the marine industry via the availability of engines, systems, and technical assistance.
Since LNG is considered as a clean fuel with high energy content, this makes it suitable for all marine
power plants, such as diesel engines, steam turbines, gas turbines, and new power plants such as fuel
cells. This means that LNG has a higher adaptability than other marine fuels [9], with emphasis on
reciprocating engines, which have a wide application on board ship. It is obvious that changing
reciprocating engines to LNG-fuelled engines for both land and marine applications is more widespread
now because the amount of exhaust emissions generated from the combustion of LNG is lower than that
produced by the combustion of diesel oil in engines . Reciprocating gas-fuelled engines can be classified
into two main types: LNG spark ignition engines and NG compression ignition (CI) engines. CI engines
are divided into engines fuelled by combining diesel fuel with NG in dual-fuelled (DF) operation engines
and engines fuelled by NG only (gas engines (GEs). Choosing NG CI engines is driven by several
environmental and economic factors. However, the majority of LNG engines operate in a DF mode where
GEs have some problems related to the safety considerations.

The growing consciousness of environmental issues makes LNG a fuel that is of increasing interest
around the world. Internationally, there were few ships that operated on compressed natural gas (CNG)
before the year 2000. However, the introduction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a fuel instead of CNG
has turned NG into a feasible fuel for many ship types and trades, where this reduces considerably the
space needed for gas fuel storage. The first LNG-fuelled ferry in the world started its shuttle transport of
people in Norway 8 years ago. A total of ten ships are now in operation in Norway, running on LNG, and
more are being built and contracted. Now new projects with LNG or CNG as the fuel on board ships are
being seriously considered in many other countries

Generally, LNG can be stored on board ship either in a compressed form or in a liquefied form but, owing
to the higher quantity of NG used during the trip for this case study, it will not be practical to store it in a
compressed form. The only suitable storage form here is the liquefied form, which already has the
advantage of lower weight and space demands compared with CNG. Table 6 shows the capacity,
pressure, and dimensions of IMO-7 LNG container models which are used for this purpose.

In addition to the economic benefit of savings in the fuel cost by using NG instead of diesel oil, the
maintenance cost is also considered to be a very important item that affects the economic considerations.
From previous experiments on using LNG as fuel for engines, it is concluded that the mean time between
maintenance for NG increased threefold to fourfold in comparison with that of diesel engines. This means
that the total running hours of LNG-fuelled engines will be at least three times that of engines working by
diesel oil. For example, for the case study in question, the main engine overhaul is carried out on average
every 22 000 h, which costs US$1.0625 million for each engine. This presents a cost of US$96 590/year.
However, in the case of the LNG-fuelled engine, it costs one third of this value. For other maintenance
activities, which include routine maintenance, lubricating oil consumption, and spare parts consumptions,
the cost is expected to be reduced in the case when NG is used to about 50 per cent of original cost he
cost benefits of using NG instead of diesel oil as regards the maintenance activity of DF engines with
respect to the maintenance activity of diesel engines. Data about the maintenance activity of diesel
engines were obtained from the head office of the company that owns M/V El-Mottaheda-1. The previous
results give us an approximate savings cost benefit per ship power unit of US$49.86/kW, as shown in
Table 9. If this value is applied to all ships working in this area, which have a total power rating sum of
155 000 kW, the total savings cost will reach US$7 729 000/year, which will surely confirm the idea of
changing from diesel-oilfuelled engines to LNG-fuelled engines and make it more applicable.

This study proves that the conversion process of a ship’s main engines from the traditional fuel (diesel
oil) to an alternative fuel (LNG) has great environmental benefits and demonstrated emissions reduction
for NOx by 72 per cent, SOx by 91 per cent, PM by 85 per cent, and CO2 by 10 per cent. Consequently,
from the economic point of view, this study shows that, in the case when LNG was used instead of diesel
oil, the annual costs of the fuel and maintenance will be decreased by 39 per cent and by 40 per cent
respectively. In addition, this study reports that there are some factors which need to be overcome in order
to make the conversion process easier, such as the capital cost of the conversion and the possibility of
bunkering the LNG on board ship which requires the infrastructures of the ports to be upgraded to allow
refuelling with LNG.
The future of natural gas as a fuel in marine gas turbine for LNG carriers
By: M Morsy El-Gohary

This paper discusses the suitability of using natural gas as a fuel for marine gas turbine electric propulsion
(DFGE), utilizing natural boil-off gas and forced boil-off gas, as well as investigating its economical and
environmental benefits over other propulsion options. The benchmark ship chosen for this study has a
capacity of 150,000 m3 and is powered by conventional steam propulsion. For this purpose a spreadsheet
model was developed to determine the liquefied natural gas carrier operating costs for different
propulsion options. This is in addition to a sensitivity analysis to study the effect of varying range, heavy
fuel oil (HFO) and natural gas prices on ship operating cost. Recently, about 40% of the new orders
shifted to slow speed diesel engines with re-liquefaction plant and dual fuel diesel electric propulsion. To
date, marine gas turbines are not used in liquefied natural gas carriers. It was found that using natural gas
as a fuel with the proposed marine gas turbine cycle at current HFO and natural gas prices provides the
highest cost saving for a distance less than 4000 nautical miles (NM). With the expected changes in fuel
prices, the proposed cycle achieves cost saving of 3% per round trip, and this saving is directly
proportional to increasing fuel prices, compared to other options.

The propulsion options for LNG carrier should be able to utilize boil-off gas (BOG) very safely and
easily.7 Also, they should be able to improve the operational efficiency and reduce the engine room size
to increase cargo carrying capacity which is considered the main market requirements.8,9 The various
proposed machinery arrangement being considered by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and LNG
industry (owners and shipyards) are as follows.

Slow speed diesel engine has dominated the propulsion and electric power generation in all segments of
merchant shipping, except LNG carriers. Experience gained from thousands of diesel engine installations
in service has resulted in the development of high efficiency (about 50%), reliable and safe operation. It
commonly burns liquid fuel as HFO. BOG has to be re-liquefied onboard by re-liquefaction plant and fed
back to the cargo tank. These re-liquefaction plants require a substantial amount of electric power (3600
kW) to operate, representing a considerable added cost (6 MUS$) and weight.11 However, it delivers
more cargo due to saving the BOG. A gas combustion unit (GCU) is also installed in case of
reliquefaction plant failure. A typical plant arrangement for MC-90K SSDE made by B&W is shown in
Figure 4. This configuration was carried out for Qatar gas for their new order ships.11 Although, the total
efficiency was calculated and found to be 49% as shown in Figure 4, it could be increased by installing a
combined power take off/take in (PTO/PTI) or using two diesel engines arrangement.

This paper discuses the applicability and the economical benefits of using natural gas as a fuel with
marine gas turbine electric propulsion as a propulsion option for LNG carriers. A specially designed
spreadsheet model revealed a significant reduction in operating cost Table 4. Initial investment cost of
relevant propulsion systems.10,19 System Initial cost US$M Steam turbine Boiler, 13.5 Condenser,
turbine 3.00 Gear box 0.8 1 turbine gensets 0.9 1 diesel gensets 0.65 Propeller and shafting 0.25 Rudder
and steering gear Total initial cost 19.1 Slow speed diesel engine MAN B&W 7K98MC Main engines 7.2
Re-liquefaction plant 6.00 2 diesel gensets 1.8 Propeller and shafting 0.65 Rudder and steering gear 0.25
Auxiliary boiler 0.2 Total initial cost 16.1 Four dual fuel diesel engines (Wartsila 9L50DF) 4 3 DFDE and
alternators 11.5 2 Electrical motor-transformer 5.5 Converter 2.2 Gear box 0.65 Propeller and shafting
0.25 Rudder and steering gear 0.3 EMER. gas damping unit Total initial cost 20.4 Suggested advanced
cycle gas turbine Main and auxiliary engines with alternators 13.5 2 electrical motor. transformer,
converter 5.5 Gear box 2.2 Propeller and shafting 0.65 Rudder and steering gear 0.25 EMER. gas
damping unit 0.3 Total initial cost 22.4 Table adapted from data.10,19 Figure 10. Influence of changing
HFO price on operating cost saving compared to the benchmark ship. Figure 8. Relevant fuel cost saving
compared to the benchmark ship. Figure 9. Influence of changing navigational range on operating cost
saving compared to the benchmark ship. 376 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime
Environment 226(4) Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March
22, 2015 by 2% for a trading distance below 4000 NM, compared to conventional steam propulsion,
which dominated in LNG carriers for decades. While, above 4000 NM the slow speed diesel with
reliquefaction plant and dual fuel diesel engine become more beneficial. With the expected increase in
fuel prices, and at HFO/ LNGcif =1.7, the suggested gas turbine cycle also achieves the highest cost
saving reaching 2.8% per round trip. This saving is directly proportional with the increasing of the fuel
prices compared to other options. Also, the study showed that there are some obstacles facing the spread
of natural gas use onboard ships such as the cost of converting existing engines and the ports
infrastructure for refueling with natural gas. This means further development is required to make gas
fuelled ship commercially feasible. This needs help from the involved parties such as governments,
manufacture and owners to push the shifting process forward.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF LNG

Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel and the increased use of natural gas can significantly
improve local air quality and public heath as well as reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.   When used
for power generation, “natural gas emits as much as 50 percent less CO2 than coal, results in negligible
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), mercury (Hg), and particulates compared with
other fuels” according to the International Gas Union. LNG shipments allow the environmental benefits
of natural gas to be spread around the world and can help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions
according to a report by PACE Global LNG and Coal Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. In addition a study done the National Energy Technology Laboratory entitled  Life Cycle
Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States  found that the
use of U.S. LNG exports for power production in European and Asian markets will not increase GHG
emissions, on a life cycle perspective, when compared to regional coal extraction and consumption for
power production.
In addition to providing direct environmental benefits as a fuel, natural gas and LNG can help promote
the use of renewable fuels. The ability to burn natural gas for power generation is an ideal complement to
renewable energy generation, like wind and solar power, which can be intermittent and inconsistent.
Natural gas power plants can be quickly turned on and off to help provide consistent electricity
production when solar or wind resources fluctuate. According to the U.S. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory found: “Power generation based on natural gas offers the  flexibility and increased
dispatchability that complements renewable energy power generation.”

The Environmental Footprint of Gas Transportation: LNG vs. Pipeline

By: Katerina Shaton, Arild Hervik, and Harald M. Hjelle

1.Motivations underlying the research End-use combustion generates the majority (80–90%) of the CO2
emissions from the natural gas value chain and has received due attention in academic research and
political discussion. In this paper, we focus on the environmental footprint of the rest of the value chain:
extraction, processing and transportation. The main objective of this paper is to estimate and compare the
environmental footprints of pipeline and LNG gas upstream value chains. The analysis is based on the
real data from the fields, processing and transportation facilities on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
(NCS). We estimate the unit emissions of CO2 (carbon dioxide), NOx (nitrogen oxides), nmVOCs
(nonmethane volatile organic compounds) and CH4 (methane) associated with the extraction, processing
and transportation of natural gas.

2. A short account of the research performed In order to perform a reasonable comparison, we consider
ten pipeline chains, which represent the variety of the value chain configurations on the NCS. We
consider fields of different size and age connected to each of the three major gas processing plants; two
fields with offshore processing; and also fields connected to the main electricity grid onshore and the
fields using feed gas to generate electricity. There is only one large-scale LNG chain on the NCS. As the
estimates are sensitive to the distance over which the LNG is shipped, we consider three alternative
destinations. The total emission intensities of pipeline and LNG chains are estimated by adding up
emission intensities on all segments of the defined parts of the chains. The emissions relating to
extraction include those by mobile units used to drill production wells. Exploration (seismic surveys by
special ships, exploration drilling by drilling rigs) and support activities provided by supply vessels and
helicopters and emissions relating to the storage and loading of oil and NGL/condensate are excluded
from the analysis.

3. Main conclusions and policy implications of the work The results of this comparative study corroborate
the general findings of other studies that pipeline transportation chains environmentally outperform LNG-
based chains, as LNG chains comprise extra processing steps. The most important observation is the
variability of the environmental performance of different technological solutions and the corresponding
emission intensities. This limits the usability of average estimates and restricts the scope for drawing
general conclusions regarding pipeline transportation emission intensities. In cases where the fields are
geographically close to the shore and electricity is available from the main grid, pipeline transportation is
indeed ‘green’. In other cases, long distances and the need to generate power offshore make pipeline
transportation significantly more CO2 emission-intensive. Due to technological specificity, LNG chains
are significantly more CH4- and nmVOC-intensive than pipeline chains. With regard to NOx emissions,
there is no clear advantage of the considered pipelines over LNG chains. A direct comparison of pipeline
and LNG transportation may not by reasonable in cases where LNG is transported over long distances
where pipeline transportation is impossible. However, the choice between a possibility of receiving
pipeline gas and importing LNG over longdistances should be also evaluated from the perspective of its
environmental impact.

Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas

Global warming emissions

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower
than those from coal or oil.

Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural
gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant. Considering only tailpipe
emissions, natural gas also emits 15 to 20 percent less heat-trapping gases than gasoline when burned in
today’s typical vehicle Emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes, however, do not tell the full story.The
drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of
methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a
100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years. Preliminary studies and field measurements show
that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle
emissions.Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends
on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the
energy conversion efficiency, and other factors. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept
below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants
over short time frames of 20 years or fewer. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even
marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel
and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but
deploying such technology would require new policies and investments.LNG can reduce consumption of
cylinder lube oil and associated emissions. LNG has a higher adaptability than other marine fuels. It has
captured the attention of marine industry for propelling non-gas-carrying vessels due to its cleaner
emissions compared with the conventional marine fuels.

Air pollution

Cleaner burning than other fossil fuels, the combustion of natural gas produces negligible amounts of
sulfur, mercury, and particulates. Burning natural gas does produce nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are
precursors to smog, but at lower levels than gasoline and diesel used for motor vehicles. DOE analyses
indicate that every 10,000 U.S. homes powered with natural gas instead of coal avoids the annual
emissions of 1,900 tons of NOx, 3,900 tons of SO2, and 5,200 tons of particulates. Reductions in these
emissions translate into public health benefits, as these pollutants have been linked with problems such as
asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, and heart disease for hundreds of thousands of Americans.

However, despite these benefits, unconventional gas development can affect local and regional air
quality. Some areas where drilling occurs have experienced increases in concentrations of hazardous air
pollutants and two of the six “criteria pollutants” — particulate matter and ozone plus its precursors —
regulated by the EPA because of their harmful effects on health and the environment. Exposure to
elevated levels of these air pollutants can lead to adverse health outcomes, including respiratory
symptoms, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. One recent study found that residents living less than half
a mile from unconventional gas well sites were at greater risk of health effects from air pollution from
natural gas development than those living farther from the well sites.

Land use and wildlife

The construction and land disturbance required for oil and gas drilling can alter land use and harm local
ecosystems by causing erosion and fragmenting wildlife habitats and migration patterns. When oil and
gas operators clear a site to build a well pad, pipelines, and access roads, the construction process can
cause erosion of dirt, minerals, and other harmful pollutants into nearby streams.

A study of hydraulic fracturing impacts in Michigan found potential environmental impacts to be

“significant” and include increased erosion and sedimentation, increased risk of aquatic contamination
from chemical spills or equipment runoff, habitat fragmentation, and reduction of surface waters as a
result of the lowering of groundwater levels.

Water use and pollution

Unconventional oil and gas development may pose health risks to nearby communities through
contamination of drinking water sources with hazardous chemicals used in drilling the wellbore,
hydraulically fracturing the well, processing and refining the oil or gas, or disposing of wastewater.
Naturally occurring radioactive materials, methane, and other underground gases have sometimes leaked
into drinking water supplies from improperly cased wells; methane is not associated with acute health
effects but in sufficient volumes may pose flammability concerns. The large volumes of water used in
unconventional oil and gas development also raise water-availability concerns in some communities.

Groundwater

There have been documented cases of groundwater near oil and gas wells being contaminated with
fracking fluids as well as with gases, including methane and volatile organic compounds. One major
cause of gas contamination is improperly constructed or failing wells that allow gas to leak from the well
into groundwater. Cases of contamination have been documented in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Another potential avenue for groundwater contamination is natural or man-made fractures in the
subsurface, which could allow stray gas to move directly between an oil and gas formation and
groundwater supplies.

In addition to gases, groundwater can become contaminated with hydraulic fracturing fluid. In several
cases, groundwater was contaminated from surface leaks and spills of fracturing fluid. Fracturing fluid
also may migrate along abandoned wells, around improperly sealed and constructed wells, through
induced fractures, or through failed wastewater pit liners .

Surface Water

Unconventional oil and gas development also poses contamination risks to surface waters through spills
and leaks of chemical additives, spills and leaks of diesel or other fluids from equipment on-site, and
leaks of wastewater from facilities for storage, treatment, and disposal. Unlike groundwater
contamination risks, surface water contamination risks are mostly related to land management and to on-
and off-site chemical and wastewater management.

Shipping and climate change

At current growth rates, shipping could represent some 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Which measures could reduce its contribution to climate change?

What is the impact of shipping on climate change?

The Third IMO GHG Study (2014) estimated that for the period 2007-2012, shipping emitted about 1,000
Mt CO2 per year, equaling approximately 3.1% of annual global CO2 emissions. The latest update to the
study by CE Delft projects shipping emissions to increase by up to 120% by 2050 if other sectors
decarbonise successfully. Under a business-as-usual scenario and if other sectors of the economy reduce
emissions to keep the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, shipping could represent
some 10% of global GHG emissions by 2050. 

Shipping also contributes to climate change through emissions of Black Carbon, tiny black particles,
produced by combustion of marine fuel. The highest amounts of black carbon particles are produced by
ships burning heavy fuel oil. Black carbon accounts for  21% of CO2-equivalent emissions from ships,
making it the second most important driver of shipping’s climate impacts after carbon dioxide. Currently
there are no regulations controlling black carbon emissions from shipping. 

Is shipping included in the Paris Agreement? 

Until the Paris agreement was finalised at the end of 2015, the major climate agreement in force was the
Kyoto Protocol which tasked developed countries to work through the IMO to cut emissions. The Paris
agreement is different. Unlike Kyoto, which had specific emission targets only for developed countries,
the Paris agreement requires all parties to address all emissions. Parties are required to establish
‘economy-wide’ emission reduction targets, and shipping is clearly a key part of the economy. Read
more here.

What action is the IMO taking to address climate change?

In April 2018 the IMO agreed a draft greenhouse gas strategy for shipping requiring the shipping sector to
reduce its emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008’ while pursuing efforts towards phasing
them out as soon as possible. It was agreed that carbon intensity of international shipping should decline
with reductions in CO2 emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at
least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008.  

This is to be achieved by an agreed set of short, medium and long measures which are the subject of
ongoing negotiations. The candidate short-term measures, include strengthening the energy efficiency
requirements for existing ships (EEDI), speed and other technical and operational measures. CE Delft has
analysed the impact of the proposed short-term measures on emissions and concludes that only with
measures that change operational practices (for example, the vessel speed) the 2030 target can be met. On
their own, technical measures or measures that remove market barriers will not improve carbon intensity
sufficiently to meet the global goal for reducing energy intensity of shipping of 40% by 2030.
Despite these plans and many successive rounds of negotiations, the IMO has so far failed to adopt
reduction measures to set the maritime sector on a pathway compatible with the temperature goals of the
Paris Agreement.

What is the EEDI?

The IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), approved in July 2011, is the first globally-binding
design standard aimed at abating climate change from shipping. It applies to (almost) all new ships and
entered into force in 2013. The index requires new ships to become more energy efficient, with standards
that will be made increasingly more stringent over time. Read our questions and answers on the IMO's
EEDI.

How much more fuel efficient will EEDI ships have to be, and by when?

Different classes and sizes of ships will have different standards to meet. Standards are compared to the
baseline, set as the average efficiency of ships built between 1999-2009.

 Phase I: an overall 10% improvement target in vessel energy efficiency applies to new ships built
between 2015 and 2019;
 Phase II: ships built between 2020 and 2024 will have to improve their energy efficiency by 15
and 20%, depending on the ship type;
 Phase III: Ships delivered after 2025 will have to be 30% more efficient;
Smaller ships have different efficiency requirements for each phase. 

New ship designs less fuel-efficient than those built in 1990

Ships built in the first decade of the 2000s were, on average, less fuel-efficient than those built in the
1990s, according to the first study of the historical development of the design efficiency of new ships.
The data indicates that new ships, such as bulk carriers, tankers, and container ships, built in 2013 were,
on average, 10% less fuel-efficient than those built a quarter of a century ago. The findings contradict the
shipping industry’s narrative that it has been constantly improving its environmental performance. 

EEDI standards too weak to drive improvements

Since 2013, however, the design efficiency of ships has improved considerably. Industry claims it is due
to the EEDI but this cannot explain some of the extraordinary levels of over-compliance being seen by
certain types of new ships with the 2025 Phase III EEDI requirements, which are complying almost a
decade in advance and sometimes by a factor of 2. Cyclical higher fuel prices and low freight rates are
more likely to be the main drivers of efficiency. Although the current over-compliance is welcome news,
without strengthening the EEDI new ships will likely be less efficient when market conditions (long-term
fuel prices and freight rates) change.

IMO discussion has acknowledged that the EEDI is not stimulating the uptake of new technologies, nor is
it driving efficiency improvements. Read the study here. Since 2013 newly-built ships subject to the
EEDI have performed much the same as those not covered by the regulation.
Almost three-quarters (71%) of all new containerships, which emit around a quarter of global ship CO2
emissions, already comply with the post-2025 requirements of the IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index
(EEDI), according to a recent study based on the in-house analysis of the IMO’s own data. Additionally,
the best 10% of new containerships are already almost twice as efficient as the requirement for 10 years’
time. This reveals that the EEDI is not incentivising the uptake of new technologies – all it may do is
prevent a reversion to the worst designs of the past. These recent efficiency gains are part of a recognised
historical trend for ship design efficiency to fluctuate according to economic cycles and fuel prices.

While reducing design speed is a very effective way of improving the design efficiency of a ship, there
has in fact only been a modest reduction in the average design speed of new vessels according to the data
analysed (and that has largely been limited to container ships). Meanwhile the design efficiency of new
vessels has improved considerably. With efficiency improvements via new technologies and speed
reduction largely untapped, there remains considerable potential for further design efficiency
improvements but these will not be taken up unless the IMO incentivises them through stricter EEDI
requirements.

What is slow steaming?

Slow steaming refers to the practice whereby the (operational) speed of the ship is reduced. It basically
means that the ship’s engine is not used at full power, thus saving fuel, reducing CO2 and air pollutant
emissions.

Reducing ship speed by 10% will lead to a 27% reduction of the ship’s emissions. Overall, if all ships
were to slow-steam, the available capacity on the market would be reduced (more ships would be needed
to carry out the same transport work). If the additional emissions of building and operating these new
ships were considered in the equation, then reducing the fleet’s speed by 10% would lead to overall
CO2 savings of 19%.

Click here to see how a 20% reduction in ship speed would have a big impact on the climate and
environmental footprint of shipping.

What is the purpose of developing slow steaming?

Reducing the (operational) speed of ships multiplies the positive effects of an energy efficiency index, as
it results in burning less fuel and therefore emitting less CO2 and other greenhouse gases. It also
contributes to significantly lower emissions of air pollutants such as NOx and PM, with benefits greatly
outweighing costs. Slow-steaming is often regarded as the most cost-effective way to reduce CO2
emissions as it can be done at almost no cost while translating into operational savings (for more on this
see here).

Is the industry already practicing slow steaming?

The industry started to slow steam in order to deal with the overcapacity resulting from the economic
crisis and the subsequent drop in international trade. In a seminar organised in October 2011 by T&E and
Seas at Risk, a representative of Maersk – the world's largest container shipping company – described
how they had been successfully using slow steaming since 2007, decreasing their engines’ load by 35%
without any technical problems for ship owners. On the contrary, slow steaming has brought about fuel
savings and reduced costs for maintenance and operational issues. The Maersk representative also said
that his company sees no technical problems in implementing so-called super-slow steaming, which
would mean decreasing the engine power by up to 90%.

Is regulated slow steaming legally and technically enforceable?

The findings of the first ever study on the feasibility of regulated slow steaming indicate that it is
technically possible and legally enforceable without any major administrative burden and at no cost for
the shipping industry. The report – carried out by the Dutch consultancy CE Delft, and commissioned by
T&E and Seas at Risk – showed that reducing the average operational speed of the world fleet can have
dramatic reductions in global ship CO2 emissions even after taking into account the need to build and
operate additional ships to deliver the same amount of transport work. Slow steaming could be enforced
globally using the Automatic Identification System (AIS), already mandatory on all large ships, since it
provides real time information on the ship’s location, speed and direction. It is therefore impossible to
cheat the system.

Is LNG an option?

Liquid natural gas (LNG) is considered a potential alternative to conventional heavy fuel oil (HFO) and
marine gas oil (MGO) partly due to its perceived environmental benefits as LNG can lead to a net
decrease in SOx of up to 100% and of NOx emissions up to 90% compared to HFO. Also, some industry
leaders and policymakers also consider LNG an option in delivering a pathway to decarbonisation for
the shipping sector, leading to LNG being classified as an ‘alternative fuel’.  

However research shows that, at best, LNG delivers at best up to 10% reduction of GHG compared to the
replaced diesel fuel and all this under an optimistic methane leakage scenario. This level of potential
GHG savings will likely be cancelled out in absolute terms because of the growth of the maritime trade. If
methane leakage rates are higher, as some studies suggest, switching to LNG could result in increased
GHG emissions compared to the diesel fuel it replaces. Analysis of laboratory engine tests show that
modern dual-fuel LNG engines installed in new ships will have a GHG performance worse than MGO.
Read our recent blog on LNG.
LNG Retrofit Aimed At Cutting Ferry’s Environmental Footprint
By:  jburke

Wärtsilä’s LNGPac system being installed in Wadden Sea ship

Wärtsilä said it will retrofit a ferry in a UNESCO World Heritage site to run on liquefied natural gas
(LNG) in a project aimed at lessening the ship’s environmental footprint.

The Wadden Sea in the southeastern end of the North Sea is biologically diverse and is important for
breeding and migrating birds. The retrofit will enable the 1200 passenger Münsterland, a RoPax ferry
owned by German operator Aktien-Gesellschaft ‘Ems’ (AG Ems), to utilize LNG as fuel, thereby
completely eliminating its emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulates, while significantly reducing
its nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, the company said.
The work will take place at the Koninklijke Niestern-Sander B.V. yard in the Netherlands. The yard has
facilities for shipbuilding and repairs under one roof, and will use these facilities to build a completely
new aftship to accommodate the Wärtsilä LNGPac fuel storage, supply, and control system. This fitting
of the new aftship is scheduled to commence in September 2020.

A similar retrofitting project was carried out in 2015 on the Ostfriesland, a sister ship to the Münsterland,
and the success of this project was cited as a prime consideration in the award of this subsequent contract.
“There is no greater endorsement of customer satisfaction than repeat orders, and we are delighted to have
again been selected to convert an AG Ems owned ferry to LNG fuel operation,” said Matthias Becker,
Managing Director, Wärtsilä Deutschland GmbH. “The project is fully in line with our Smart Marine
approach that emphasizes greater efficiency and better environmental performance for customers, as we
lead the industry’s transformation into a new era of opportunity.”

The vessel will be fitted with two Wärtsilä 20DF dual-fuel generating sets and a Wärtsilä LNGPac
system. The scope of supply also includes Wärtsilä’s patented Cold Recovery system, which utilizes the
latent heat of LNG in the ship’s air conditioning, thus reducing electricity consumption. In addition to the
environmental benefits, significant operational cost savings and an increase in overall vessel efficiency
are the expected outcomes of the project. Delivery of the Wärtsilä equipment will commence in spring
2020, and completion of the retrofitting is anticipated during Q1 2021.

“Operating our vessels in the most ecologically friendly way possible is of the utmost importance to us.
Wärtsilä’s technology is already known to us, so we had no hesitation to contract them again to retrofit
the ‘Münsterland’ to allow it to operate without restrictions in the SECA and NECA sulphur and nitrogen
oxide controlled areas,” said Bernhard Brons, managing director of AG Ems.

In addition to the retrofitting of these two ferries, the owners also ordered via a subsidiary company,
Cassen Eils, a full Wärtsilä dual-fuel package for LNG operation for the ferry Helgoland. The ship
entered service in 2015.
 Improving our environmental footprint with LNG
What is LNG and how is it used as fuel?

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is one of the world's fastest growing energy sources. It's the cleanest
burning fossil fuel and the gas can be found in underground reservoirs all over the world.LNG is found in
the form of gas and is mostly comprised of methane, with small amounts of ethane, propane, butane and
non-combustibles. In order to use the gas for fuel, the impurities are removed and the gas purified,
leaving methane, ethane and propane to be used as fuel.The purified gas is cooled down to -161 degrees
Celsius, changing the property of the gas to a liquid, which is then transported, stored and used as fuel.

Will eco-friendly and sustainable fuels have an impact on the customer’s experience?

Operations Manager at Pall-Ex, Paul Pegg, responds, “An important part of this move towards low
emissions vehicles is ensuring that the driving experience and performance do not suffer as a result of the
alternative fuel source.”

Account Manager at Volvo, Darren Newman, says, “Sustainability needn’t bring additional cost or
complication to heavy transport operations, quite the contrary in fact. The Volvo LNG solution offers
uncompromised performance as it drives exactly like a diesel engine vehicle.”

Are there any user differences between driving a standard HGV/LGV compared to one run on LNG?

Pall-Ex driver, Mahesh Patel, responds, “I’ve been with Pall-Ex for four years and was excited to get the
opportunity to try this out. The performance is virtually the same as the traditional diesel trucks I’m used
to, and the fact it is environmentally friendly is a big positive.

“I liked the LNG truck, although it was a little slower than the standard diesel model, it’s best to drive it
more steadily for better fuel economy anyway.”

Will using LNG-powered engines save money, too?

Paul has noticed a positive change, “Since we started using the vehicle, we have saved hundreds of
pounds every week with just this one vehicle. We are due to meet with our vehicle supplier, MRS and
Volvo to discuss the opportunities for the future, which is exciting.” Darren responds, “20% less carbon
and 30% lower fuel costs are possible with our unique compression ignition LNG engines, and LNG
attracts a £0.40p per litre reduction in fuel duty relative to diesel. Using compression ignition with LNG
delivers carbon and costs savings without compromising engine performance – fundamental qualities
when operating in an integrated pallet network.”

What else have you learnt from the LNG trial?

Mahesh notes, “All drivers need to drive as economically as possible to save fuel, money and to reduce
emissions and this new kind of power is another tool to help us reduce our emissions.” Paul comments,
“We are learning and gaining as much as possible from the trial. This truck is a new opportunity that can
benefit our operation and the environment, so we are very keen to understand how it can fit our model, so
we can utilise it within the Pall-Ex network.”
How to make the liquefied natural gas industry more sustainable
The recently announced $40 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in northern British Columbia
represents the single largest private sector investment in Canadian history. And construction will soon
begin on two more LNG projects, one in Nova Scotia and another in British Columbia.

While oil and gas companies and local media are touting LNG’s economic benefits, others are raising
concerns about its impact on Canada’s climate commitments.

What’s the right answer? It turns out, it depends on how Canada decides to regulate LNG, and the oil and
gas industry.

The pro-environment case for LNG is simple. Natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel than coal.
Replacing coal use in China with Canadian natural gas will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions as
well as improve air quality in Asia. Plus, the emissions associated with shipping LNG to China from
Canada are about 30 per cent less than those produced by shipping LNG from Qatar or Australia
— China’s current major suppliers — because of the shorter distances.

The practical case is simpler. In its recent report on the global LNG outlook, Bloomberg New Energy
Finance projects LNG demand will grow to 450 million metric tonnes per year (MMtpa) by 2030. Most
of this demand growth (86 per cent) comes from Asia, with China leading the pack. The argument goes
— someone is going to supply Asia’s need for LNG, why shouldn’t it be Canada?

Is sustainable LNG possible?

Sustainable development of a Canadian LNG industry is indeed possible, but it depends on effective
management of two critical environmental risks: methane emissions from natural gas production and
electricity emissions associated with powering the LNG facility.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. The warming potential of methane is 36 times greater than carbon
dioxide over a 100-year period. In its latest report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) says stopping methane leaks is key if we are to keep global warming below 1.5 ℃.

Worryingly, several recent scientific studies show higher methane emissions from oil and gas
production in British Columbia and Alberta compared to official estimates. High methane leakage can
negate the greenhouse gas emissions advantages of using natural gas over coal.

The key to developing a low-carbon LNG industry is to reduce the methane emissions associated with
production, transportation and liquefaction of natural gas. The federal government recently finalized
regulations to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. Similar regulations in Alberta and
British Columbia will go a long way to bolster the case for sustainability.

Innovative emissions detection

Several start-up companies in Canada and the United States are developing technologies that promise
faster and more cost-effective detection of methane leaks. These technological innovations
use drones, planes and even satellites to survey large areas quickly, likely providing cheaper ways to find
methane leaks.

Our recent study — the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge — assessed ten leak detection
technologies on platforms such as trucks, drones and planes. This study was conducted in a single-blind
format — participating teams did not know the location or size of leaks that they were tested on. We
should have the results publicly available by early next year.

Furthermore, in a sign of growing interest in technology innovation, the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, an
industry-led initiative focused on climate solutions, recently invested in companies developing new
methane emissions detection technologies.

Until recently, regulations prescribed the use of traditional approaches to leak detection at oil and gas
facilities. Aggressive methane mitigation policies that allow for the use of new technologies can not only
reduce emissions at lower cost, but also help energize Canada’s innovation ecosystem.
Environmental Effects of Marine Transportation

By: Tony Robert Walker

Marine transportation drives global trade, moving over 10 billion tonnes of containers, solid and liquid
bulk cargo across the world's seas annually. Historically, shipping companies and ports operated with
limited environmental oversight, but accidental oil spills in the 1960s, caused widespread coastal
pollution and seabird mortality, triggering the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL). MARPOL is the main international convention to prevent marine pollution by
ships from operational or accidental causes. Additionally, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
uses various instruments to protect the marine environment from shipping activities. Nevertheless, marine
transportation still generates negative impacts on the marine environment, including air pollution;
greenhouse gas emissions; releases of ballast water containing aquatic invasive species; historical use of
antifoulants; oil and chemical spills; dry bulk cargo releases; garbage; underwater noise pollution; ship-
strikes on marine megafauna; risk of ship grounding or sinkings; and widespread sediment contamination
of ports during trans-shipment or ship breaking activities. This chapter summarizes environmental effects
of marine transportation and describes mitigative, legislative and environmental performance measures
currently available to improve management of these global issues.

Marine transportation is responsible for moving billions of dollars worth of goods each day, accounting
for > 90% (by
weight) of global trade (IMO, 2017a; Walker, 2016). In 2015, the estimated world seaborne trade
volumes surpassed
10 billion tons (Asariotis et al., 2016). However, the huge volume of global marine transportation is also
associated
with negative environmental effects on the marine environment (Byrnolf et al., 2016). Marine
transportation includes
cargo-carrying commercial shipping (e.g., merchant marine) and non-cargo commercial shipping (e.g.,
ferries, cruise
ships). Although not the primary focus of this chapter, military ships, tugs, and fishing vessels may also
cause negative
environmental impacts. In 2016, 1,806,650 principal marine vessels were registered, including: 778,890
bulk carriers (e.g.,
coal, grains), 75,258 general cargo (multipurpose vessels), 503,343 oil tankers, 244,274 container ships,
44,347 chemical
tankers, 5950 ferry and passenger ships, and 1800 liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. The top five ship-
owning countries
(Greece, Japan, China, Germany, and Singapore) control more than half of the world marine vessels
(Asariotis et al., 2016).
Halpern, Hengl, and Groll (2012) illustrated the extent and magnitude of global commercial marine
transportation (Fig.
30.1).
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) uses various instruments to protect the marine
environment from
shipping activities. Although the IMO has responsibility for safety and security of global shipping, it has
also recognized
that marine transportation and port activities have unintended impacts on the environment (IMO, 2017a).
Fifty years ago,
the IMO became increasingly concerned about the large volumes of oil transported by sea in tankers. The
Torrey Canyon
Disaster of 1967, spilled 120,000 tons of crude oil, killing > 25,000 seabirds and other marine organisms,
demonstrated
the global impact of marine transportation on the environment (Wells, 2017). Subsequently, the IMO
introduced the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) to prevent tanker
accidents and minimize
their consequences, including pollution prevention of routine operations, such as cleaning cargo tanks and
disposal of oily
engine room wastes. MARPOL also covers pollution by chemicals, packaged goods, sewage, garbage,
and air pollution
(IMO, 2015a). Other international legislation to reduce environmental impacts of marine transportation
includes the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ratified in 1994, among others (Gulas, Downton,
D'Souza, Hayden,
& Walker, 2017; UNCLOS, 1982)
Marine transportation is responsible for moving billions of dollars worth of goods each day, accounting
for > 90% (by
weight) of global trade (IMO, 2017a; Walker, 2016). In 2015, the estimated world seaborne trade
volumes surpassed
10 billion tons (Asariotis et al., 2016). However, the huge volume of global marine transportation is also
associated
with negative environmental effects on the marine environment (Byrnolf et al., 2016). Marine
transportation includes
cargo-carrying commercial shipping (e.g., merchant marine) and non-cargo commercial shipping (e.g.,
ferries, cruise
ships). Although not the primary focus of this chapter, military ships, tugs, and fishing vessels may also
cause negative
environmental impacts. In 2016, 1,806,650 principal marine vessels were registered, including: 778,890
bulk carriers (e.g.,
coal, grains), 75,258 general cargo (multipurpose vessels), 503,343 oil tankers, 244,274 container ships,
44,347 chemical
tankers, 5950 ferry and passenger ships, and 1800 liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. The top five ship-
owning countries
(Greece, Japan, China, Germany, and Singapore) control more than half of the world marine vessels
(Asariotis et al., 2016).
Halpern, Hengl, and Groll (2012) illustrated the extent and magnitude of global commercial marine
transportation (Fig.
30.1).
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) uses various instruments to protect the marine
environment from
shipping activities. Although the IMO has responsibility for safety and security of global shipping, it has
also recognized
that marine transportation and port activities have unintended impacts on the environment (IMO, 2017a).
Fifty years ago,
the IMO became increasingly concerned about the large volumes of oil transported by sea in tankers. The
Torrey Canyon
Disaster of 1967, spilled 120,000 tons of crude oil, killing > 25,000 seabirds and other marine organisms,
demonstrated
the global impact of marine transportation on the environment (Wells, 2017). Subsequently, the IMO
introduced the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) to prevent tanker
accidents and minimize
their consequences, including pollution prevention of routine operations, such as cleaning cargo tanks and
disposal of oily
engine room wastes. MARPOL also covers pollution by chemicals, packaged goods, sewage, garbage,
and air pollution
(IMO, 2015a). Other international legislation to reduce environmental impacts of marine transportation
includes the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ratified in 1994, among others (Gulas, Downton,
D'Souza, Hayden,
& Walker, 2017; UNCLOS, 1982)
Marine transportation is responsible for moving billions of dollars worth of goods each day, accounting
for > 90% (by
weight) of global trade (IMO, 2017a; Walker, 2016). In 2015, the estimated world seaborne trade
volumes surpassed
10 billion tons (Asariotis et al., 2016). However, the huge volume of global marine transportation is also
associated
with negative environmental effects on the marine environment (Byrnolf et al., 2016). Marine
transportation includes
cargo-carrying commercial shipping (e.g., merchant marine) and non-cargo commercial shipping (e.g.,
ferries, cruise
ships). Although not the primary focus of this chapter, military ships, tugs, and fishing vessels may also
cause negative
environmental impacts. In 2016, 1,806,650 principal marine vessels were registered, including: 778,890
bulk carriers (e.g.,
coal, grains), 75,258 general cargo (multipurpose vessels), 503,343 oil tankers, 244,274 container ships,
44,347 chemical
tankers, 5950 ferry and passenger ships, and 1800 liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. The top five ship-
owning countries
(Greece, Japan, China, Germany, and Singapore) control more than half of the world marine vessels
(Asariotis et al., 2016).
Halpern, Hengl, and Groll (2012) illustrated the extent and magnitude of global commercial marine
transportation (Fig.
30.1).
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) uses various instruments to protect the marine
environment from
shipping activities. Although the IMO has responsibility for safety and security of global shipping, it has
also recognized
that marine transportation and port activities have unintended impacts on the environment (IMO, 2017a).
Fifty years ago,
the IMO became increasingly concerned about the large volumes of oil transported by sea in tankers. The
Torrey Canyon
Disaster of 1967, spilled 120,000 tons of crude oil, killing > 25,000 seabirds and other marine organisms,
demonstrated
the global impact of marine transportation on the environment (Wells, 2017). Subsequently, the IMO
introduced the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) to prevent tanker
accidents and minimize
their consequences, including pollution prevention of routine operations, such as cleaning cargo tanks and
disposal of oily
engine room wastes. MARPOL also covers pollution by chemicals, packaged goods, sewage, garbage,
and air pollution
(IMO, 2015a). Other international legislation to reduce environmental impacts of marine transportation
includes the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ratified in 1994, among others (Gulas, Downton,
D'Souza, Hayden,
& Walker, 2017; UNCLOS, 1982)
Marine transportation is responsible for moving billions of dollars worth of goods each day, accounting
for > 90% (by
weight) of global trade (IMO, 2017a; Walker, 2016). In 2015, the estimated world seaborne trade
volumes surpassed
10 billion tons (Asariotis et al., 2016). However, the huge volume of global marine transportation is also
associated
with negative environmental effects on the marine environment (Byrnolf et al., 2016). Marine
transportation includes
cargo-carrying commercial shipping (e.g., merchant marine) and non-cargo commercial shipping (e.g.,
ferries, cruise
ships). Although not the primary focus of this chapter, military ships, tugs, and fishing vessels may also
cause negative
environmental impacts. In 2016, 1,806,650 principal marine vessels were registered, including: 778,890
bulk carriers (e.g.,
coal, grains), 75,258 general cargo (multipurpose vessels), 503,343 oil tankers, 244,274 container ships,
44,347 chemical
tankers, 5950 ferry and passenger ships, and 1800 liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. The top five ship-
owning countries
(Greece, Japan, China, Germany, and Singapore) control more than half of the world marine vessels
(Asariotis et al., 2016).
Halpern, Hengl, and Groll (2012) illustrated the extent and magnitude of global commercial marine
transportation (Fig.
30.1).
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) uses various instruments to protect the marine
environment from
shipping activities. Although the IMO has responsibility for safety and security of global shipping, it has
also recognized
that marine transportation and port activities have unintended impacts on the environment (IMO, 2017a).
Fifty years ago,
the IMO became increasingly concerned about the large volumes of oil transported by sea in tankers. The
Torrey Canyon
Disaster of 1967, spilled 120,000 tons of crude oil, killing > 25,000 seabirds and other marine organisms,
demonstrated
the global impact of marine transportation on the environment (Wells, 2017). Subsequently, the IMO
introduced the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) to prevent tanker
accidents and minimize
their consequences, including pollution prevention of routine operations, such as cleaning cargo tanks and
disposal of oily
engine room wastes. MARPOL also covers pollution by chemicals, packaged goods, sewage, garbage,
and air pollution
(IMO, 2015a). Other international legislation to reduce environmental impacts of marine transportation
includes the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ratified in 1994, among others (Gulas, Downton,
D'Souza, Hayden,
& Walker, 2017; UNCLOS, 1982)
Marine transportation is responsible for moving billions of dollars worth of goods each day, accounting
for > 90% (by
weight) of global trade (IMO, 2017a; Walker, 2016). In 2015, the estimated world seaborne trade
volumes surpassed
10 billion tons (Asariotis et al., 2016). However, the huge volume of global marine transportation is also
associated
with negative environmental effects on the marine environment (Byrnolf et al., 2016). Marine
transportation includes
cargo-carrying commercial shipping (e.g., merchant marine) and non-cargo commercial shipping (e.g.,
ferries, cruise
ships). Although not the primary focus of this chapter, military ships, tugs, and fishing vessels may also
cause negative
environmental impacts. In 2016, 1,806,650 principal marine vessels were registered, including: 778,890
bulk carriers (e.g.,
coal, grains), 75,258 general cargo (multipurpose vessels), 503,343 oil tankers, 244,274 container ships,
44,347 chemical
tankers, 5950 ferry and passenger ships, and 1800 liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. The top five ship-
owning countries
(Greece, Japan, China, Germany, and Singapore) control more than half of the world marine vessels
(Asariotis et al., 2016).
Halpern, Hengl, and Groll (2012) illustrated the extent and magnitude of global commercial marine
transportation (Fig.
30.1).
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) uses various instruments to protect the marine
environment from
shipping activities. Although the IMO has responsibility for safety and security of global shipping, it has
also recognized
that marine transportation and port activities have unintended impacts on the environment (IMO, 2017a).
Fifty years ago,
the IMO became increasingly concerned about the large volumes of oil transported by sea in tankers. The
Torrey Canyon
Disaster of 1967, spilled 120,000 tons of crude oil, killing > 25,000 seabirds and other marine organisms,
demonstrated
the global impact of marine transportation on the environment (Wells, 2017). Subsequently, the IMO
introduced the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) to prevent tanker
accidents and minimize
their consequences, including pollution prevention of routine operations, such as cleaning cargo tanks and
disposal of oily
engine room wastes. MARPOL also covers pollution by chemicals, packaged goods, sewage, garbage,
and air pollution
(IMO, 2015a). Other international legislation to reduce environmental impacts of marine transportation
includes the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ratified in 1994, among others (Gulas, Downton,
D'Souza, Hayden,
& Walker, 2017; UNCLOS, 1982)
Marine transportation is responsible for moving billions of dollars worth of goods each day, accounting
for >90% (by weight) of global trade (IMO, 2017a; Walker, 2016). In 2015, the estimated world seaborne
trade volumes surpassed 10 billion tons (Asariotis et al., 2016). However, the huge volume of global
marine transportation is also associated with negative environmental effects on the marine environment
(Byrnolf et al., 2016). Marine transportation includes cargo-carrying commercial shipping (e.g., merchant
marine) and non-cargo commercial shipping (e.g., ferries, cruise ships). Although not the primary focus
of this chapter, military ships, tugs, and fishing vessels may also cause negative environmental impacts.
In 2016, 1,806,650 principal marine vessels were registered, including: 778,890 bulk carriers (e.g., coal,
grains), 75,258 general cargo (multipurpose vessels), 503,343 oil tankers, 244,274 container ships, 44,347
chemical tankers, 5950 ferry and passenger ships, and 1800 liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. The top
five ship-owning countries (Greece, Japan, China, Germany, and Singapore) control more than half of the
world marine vessels (Asariotis et al., 2016). Halpern, Hengl, and Groll (2012) illustrated the extent and
magnitude of global commercial marine transportation (Fig. 27.1). The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) uses various instruments to protect the marine environment from shipping activities.
Although the IMO has responsibility for safety and security of global shipping, it has also recognized that
marine transportation and port activities have unintended impacts on the environment (IMO, 2017a). Fifty
years ago, the IMO became increasingly concerned about the large volumes of oil transported by sea in
tankers. The Torrey Canyon Disaster of 1967, spilled 120,000 tons of crude oil, killing >25,000 seabirds
and other marine organisms, demonstrated the global impact of marine transportation on the environment
(Wells, 2017). Subsequently, the IMO introduced the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) to prevent tanker accidents and minimize their consequences, including
pollution prevention of routine operations, such as cleaning cargo tanks and disposal of oily engine room
wastes. MARPOL also covers pollution by chemicals, packaged goods, sewage, garbage, and air
pollution (IMO, 2015a). Other international legislation to reduce environmental impacts of marine
transportation

includes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ratified in 1994, among
others (Gulas, Downton, D'Souza, Hayden, & Walker, 2017; UNCLOS, 1982).LNG liquefied natural gas
is considered safe, non-toxic and non corrosive. LNG is reduced CO2 by up to 30% and SOx and
particulates by nearly 100% highly recommended than other marine fuels .

GHG emissions, comprising CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), from marine transportation
are a significant contributor to global anthropogenic air pollution (Endresen et al., 2003; USEPA, 2017).
In 2012, the total shipping emissions accounted for 961 million tonnes of CO2 eq., up from 816 million
tonnes of CO2 eq. in 2007 (Smith et al., 2014). Wallington and Wiesen (2014) estimated that 0.022 Gg of
N2O–N/year was emitted by marine transportation in 2010, and is expected to rise by ~20% by 2030.
Bulk carriers, oil tankers, and container ships are responsible for most shipping-derived GHGs
(Fig. 27.2), with faster ships emitting less CO2 than slower ones (Smith et al., 2014). While HFO and
MDO fuels emit similar levels of GHG pollutants, LNG can reduce CO2 emissions by ~25% but has
higher emissions of CH4, which is a potent GHG (Winnes & Fridell, 2009). Despite this, LNG is
considered an emerging marine transportation fuel (Smith et al., 2014). Major shipping ports produce
significant GHG emissions. In 2008, the Port of Barcelona emitted 331,390t of CO2 eq. (Villalba &
Gemechu, 2011). Increased CO2 deposition on and absorption by oceans from marine transportation will
exacerbate environmental extremes caused by climate change, so strategies to reduce emissions are
urgently required (Endresen et al., 2003).