Page 8 - FSUOGM Week 21 2021

FSUOGM COMMENTARY FSUOGM

for bunkering too, though. These include the fact on a GHG emissions trajectory aligned with the
that while the infrastructure for liquefaction and Paris Agreement.
regasification has grown rapidly, LNG bunker- SEA-LNG
ing infrastructure is more limited to date, which Industry pushes back
restricts where LNG-fuelled vessels can operate. Those involved in the LNG bunkering industry criticised the
And converting ships to run on LNG comes at were quick to push back against the World Bank’s World Bank’s
a cost. conclusions.
Additionally, some voices – particularly those SEA-LNG criticised the World Bank’s reports for
advocating abandoning fossil fuels altogether – reports for attempting to “prescribe solutions
have questioned the green credentials of LNG. and predict the timing” of future technology attempting
Indeed, the World Bank is not the first organisa- development, saying that this approach would
tion to dismiss its potential as a marine fuel in a ultimately undermine decarbonisation efforts. to “prescribe
decarbonising world – just the most recent and, “SEA-LNG believes strongly that the transition solutions and
potentially, the most influential one. to future fuels must not follow this prescrip-
tive approach. It is far too early to decide what predict the
Limited role the real potential of various alternatives fuels
The World Bank’s reports were published with will be for a highly complex, hard-to-abate, timing” of future
IMO targets for decarbonising the shipping global industry,” the industry group said in a
industry in mind. Under these targets GHG statement. technology
emissions from shipping are to be reduced to at “By focusing on theoretical, unproven solu- development.
least 50% below 2008 levels by 2050, and to be tions, the World Bank stifles innovation in tech-
fully phased out within this century. nologies that can also provide answers in the
The World Bank acknowledged that with the decades ahead,” SEA-LNG continued. It went
use of LNG, air quality improvements are “unde- on to urge institutions and policy-makers to set
niable” compared with oil-derived bunker fuels standards and targets that drive immediate GHG
such as heavy fuel oil (HFO). emissions reductions. “To suggest that invest-
“LNG clearly emits significantly lower quan- ments not be made in the LNG sector is unwise,
tities of sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides and will prolong the use of higher-emissions
(NOx) and particulate matter (PM),” the World fuels and slow down shipping’s decarbonisation,”
Bank said, adding that the super-chilled fuel also the group added.
emits lower levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). Individual companies added their voices to
However, it continued, lower CO2 emissions the debate. Shell’s global head of shipping and
did not mean that overall lifecycle GHG emis- maritime, Grahaeme Henderson, told the Sin-
sions from LNG would be lower compared with gapore Maritime Technology Conference that
oil-derived bunker fuels. It noted, in particular, LNG is the lowest-emission fuel available at
the fact that methane was itself a highly potent scale in the shipping industry currently. He went
GHG – more so than CO2 – and asserted that on to say Shell believed that LNG must be part
methane leakage, or methane slip, can “diminish of the solution when it comes to decarbonising
or even entirely offset the theoretical GHG bene- shipping.
fit of the use of LNG”. Titan’s den Nijs and Schaap, meanwhile,
The World Bank went on to assess two sce- highlighted the challenges and considerable
narios – one in which LNG plays a transitional costs related to adopting ammonia and hydro-
role and one in which it plays a temporary role. gen as bunker fuels.
In a transitional scenario, infrastructure for LNG “There are a whole range of safety, environ-
bunkering could subsequently be repurposed for mental and technical issues to be addressed
greener fuels in the future, while in the tempo- before these, or any other, alternative fuels and
rary scenario, LNG infrastructure is abandoned technologies are ready for use in the marine
altogether once a switch is made to zero-carbon environment, let alone that marine fuels will
bunker fuels. have to compete with other sectors like aviation
The viability of both scenarios was dismissed and road transport,” they stated.
by the World Bank, which instead said it sees Like SEA-LNG, they called on the industry
a limited role for LNG as a marine fuel. It con- to pursue immediate reductions in carbon emis-
cluded that not only are the GHG mitigation sions rather than waiting for new technologies to
benefits of LNG uncertain, but there are also become viable. And Titan’s subsequent push to
considerable risks if countries and businesses add a new bunkering barge to its fleet illustrates
invest in LNG infrastructure to meet the IMO’s that they intend to lead by example on this.
climate targets. It said these risks included For now, the development of new LNG bun-
unnecessary capital expenditures, stranded kering infrastructure shows no sign of slow-
assets and technology lock-in. ing. However, the debate continues to heat up,
As a result, the organisation recommended and the possibility of some countries taking
that countries avoid new public policy that sup- the World Bank’s recommendations on board,
ports LNG as a bunker fuel and reconsider exist- making it more difficult for more LNG bunker-
ing policy support. Instead, it urged them to keep ing expansions to proceed in the future, cannot
regulating methane emissions to put shipping be ruled out. ™

P8 www. NEWSBASE .com Week 21 26•May•2021