The IMO 2020 Sulfur Cap essentially ushered in a new type of fuel - VLSFO. With it came the engine problems caused by off-spec or incompatible fuels as producers grappled with the requirement for providing a sulfur content not exceeding 0.05%. As pointed out in Lloyd’s Register’s 2024 Fuel Quality Report, persistent issues involving cat fines, stability, sulfur content and flash point continue, and isolated incidents of chemical contamination are still occurring.
If new, alternative fuels such as methanol cause problems onboard, they are likely to be expensive: the fuels themselves are more expensive than fossil fuels and greater volumes are required. However, this week saw the culmination of some of the work underway to prevent quality problems in the uptake of methanol. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) launched the first edition of ISO 6583:2024 – a new standard for methanol as a marine fuel.
Currently, all globally traded methanol is produced to the International Methanol Producers and Consumers Association (IMPCA) Methanol Specification Reference to a minimum purity of 99.85%, but there was no international standard specifically for methanol used as marine fuel. ISO 6583:2024 addresses this gap by setting the requirements and limits for three methanol grades for marine: MMA, MMB and MMC. Grade MMC allows for wider tolerances in certain characteristics compared to MMB, while MMA includes additional requirements for lubricity and cleanliness.
Fuel quality testing capabilities are already developing. In 2023, fuel service provider VPS undertook its first methanol bunker quantity survey for Maersk’s first methanol-powered container ship, Laura Maersk. The testing of the samples was conducted to the IMPCA test slate and included testing the purity of the methanol, the presence of ethanol, water content, the presence of acetone, chlorides, the acidity of the fuel, sulfur content and the presence of other impurities. The results showed the fuel delivered matched the Bunker Delivery Note and the Certificate of Quality.
Container shipping companies like Maersk, CMA CGM and COSCO have ordered hundreds of new vessels in recent years designed to help cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to meet demands of customers and regulators.
According to the latest data from DNV, container shipping companies have orders pending for 522 dual-fuel vessels as of October 31. Of those, 216 are for methanol. The attraction of methanol is that renewable methanol can reduce CO2 by up to 95% and NOx by up to 80% while also eliminating SOx and particulate matter emissions.
Maersk continues to be a leading force in the uptake of methanol, first with newbuildings and the securing of a fuel supply, and most recently, this week with the announced completion of the conversion of the Maersk Halifax to dual-fuel methanol – an industry first for a large container ship.
AAL Shipping announced the naming ceremony for its methanol-ready multipurpose heavy lift vessel AAL Antwerp this week, but it’s not just large vessels targeted for methanol adoption. Earlier this month, Caterpillar Marine received DNV Approval in Principle of its Cat® 3500E methanol-ready marine main and auxiliary engine. The engines are available in 12-cylinder (up to 1901kW) and 16-cylinder (up to 2525kW) configurations, and Caterpillar Marine says they are specially significant for tugs and other vessels that require high-power propulsion for heavy loads.
Engine manufacturers have been hard at work developing methanol technology for some time. MAN Energy Solutions first conducted sea trials for its ME-LGIM (dual-fuel methanol) engine in 2016. The November issue of Maritime Reporter and Engineering News delves into how many other engine manufacturers are also supporting alternative fuels.
The report states: “The latest engine developments aim to make it easier for owners to avoid the chicken-and-egg fuel price and availability risks of new fuels.” The IMO is at work on this too. Ahead of COP 29, the IMO has made a submission to the 61st session of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice outlining the progress it has made in support of maritime climate action.
The submission covers the outcomes achieved at MEPC 82 this year. At that meeting, the Committee advanced discussions on the proposed mid-term measures for GHG reduction which include a global pricing mechanism for GHG emissions from ships and a global marine fuel standard. The aim is to adopt these mid-term measures in late 2025, with a view to entry into force in 2027.
These initiatives, and the efforts of early adopters like Maersk, aim to avert any costly fuel problems for operators. With them, the building blocks for the orderly uptake of greener shipping fuels are being put in place in readiness for the industry’s net-zero ambition for “on or around 2050.”
