Q&A: Aviation may pull feeds away from marine: BV

Biofuel feedstocks could be routed away from marine fuels to meet demand from the aviation sector if the latter is willing to pay higher prices associated with sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), Bureau Veritas (BV) Marine & Offshore's global market leader for sustainable shipping Julien Boulland told Argus. Edited highlights follow:

Marine biodiesel has been the largest alternative fuel uptake, with over 1mn t sold in Rotterdam and Singapore last year. But with Argus assessments showing premiums above $225/t to VLSFO dob ARA, how do you see marine biodiesel demand in the medium- to long-term?

Shipowners and ship operators have to run an individual cost-analysis on whether the premiums could be offset by potential savings under EU emissions trading system (ETS) and FuelEU Maritime regulations, as well as any future regulations such as the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) economic pricing mechanism.

In terms of emissions, biofuels still emit CO2 on a tank-to-wake basis, but less on a well-to-wake basis compared to their fossil equivalents. This will also vary depending on the feedstock for the biofuel as well as the production process.

Under the current IMO regulations for energy efficiency, including the Ship Energy Management Plan (SEEMP) and its requirements for fuel reporting (DCS), there might be some indirect commercial benefits for owners, too. For example, a better CII (Carbon Intensity Indicator) score may make a vessel more appealing to charterers and help its owner secure more favourable rates.

There are also other factors to consider, such as Scope 3 emissions rights, which can influence demand, as we currently see from voluntary demand from cargo owners seeking those documents.

But this will also have a geographic impact on demand, as larger container liner companies usually utilise the east-west route and they might prefer to opt for bunkering the marine biodiesel blend in Singapore due to lower prices.

What are the risks associated with bunkering marine biodiesel in relation to conventional ship engines? How significant is the recent FOBAS report that implied a correlation between the use of "unidentified" biofuels and engine pump injector damage?

We have supported our shipowner clients in numerous pilots to trial biofuels such as fatty acid methyl ester (Fame) and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) in variable blends.

Overall, these trials have gone smoothly, but we have learned a few things along the way.

Firstly, engines do not need to be modified, but since biofuels have slightly different physical properties, it is necessary to find the right engine adjustments. A very good knowledge of the fuel properties is key in determining the right adjustments, and the new revision of ISO 8217 on marine fuel specifications is crucial in supporting this process. Another key finding is the importance of receiving full information on fuel characteristics from the supplier. Finally, BV plays a key role in ensuring full fuel certification on several aspects, including sustainability and physical properties.

Used cooking oil (UCO) can also feed into SAF and with potentially greater refining margins. Do you think some feedstocks will be pulled away from marine?

When it comes to methanol, we believed marine would take up more of the feedstock compared with the chemicals industry due to greater willingness to pay larger premiums.

But with biofuels, it seems to be the other way around where aviation could end up pulling biofuel feedstocks away from maritime. In terms of fuel consumption, the marine and aviation industries are comparable but if aviation are willing to pay more, then it will likely get more of the feedstocks required to produce SAF.

What are the implications of the new ISO specifications, what are the key takeaways for marine biodiesel uptake?

More has to be done, but now we have parameters for assessing biofuel blend specifications.

It was very well accepted by the industry, and now operators and shipowners have a standard to rely on. But it doesn't resolve the question around feedstock cross-industry competition. However, it does also open the door for off-spec Fame residue blends to become ISO-certified — depending on further testing.

With IMO aiming for "global regulations for a global market", how do you see conflicts between different regulations affecting the market?

We are closely following the IMO development process for a global economic pricing mechanism.

IMO has assigned a working group of technical experts to look at this mechanism from an apolitical perspective.

In terms of potential regulatory conflicts, we have the example of the Netherlands, where the Dutch emission authority requires the delivery of Proof of Sustainability (PoS) certificates for applying to the scheme of Dutch renewable tickets (HBE-G) which can be traded, but this PoS cannot be used for other purposes, such as the EU ETS. To circumvent this hiccup, we may see the development of new digital certificates, such as an accompanying ISCC-certified Proof of Compliance (PoC).

By Hussein Al-Khalisy