Norwegian developer Fuella is advancing a portfolio of renewable ammonia projects across Norway, Brazil and Canada, with its flagship Skipavika development close to a final investment decision (FID). But regulatory uncertainty and slow implementation of key policies such as the EU's revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED III) continue to hold back investment decisions and offtake commitments across Europe, Fuella says. Argus spoke with Fuella's head of commercial Marco Querci about the status of the firm's projects, its commitment to ammonia as a hydrogen derivative, and the importance of clear policy signals. Edited highlights follow:
Can you tell us about the current status of Fuella's projects?
We started in Norway, where our most advanced project is located. The next projects in line are the two plants in Brazil, and more recently we added the project in Quebec. The Skipavika project is our flagship project on the west coast of Norway, near Bergen, in an industrialised zone. It will be around 130MW, producing 100,000 t/yr of ammonia. We completed front-end engineering design [FEED] in 2024 and the project is effectively ready to build. Since then, we have focused on optimisation, particularly costs and competitiveness. We continue to work with [German utility] EnBW, a long-standing partner and investor, while evaluating additional offtakers. We still aim to reach FID in the coming months.
How are the two projects in Brazil progressing?
Brazil is where we took the Skipavika approach and scaled it up. The plants are roughly four times the size of the Norwegian project, at around 400,000 t/yr of capacity. Brazil is one of the few places where excellent wind and solar resources can be combined with a hydropower backbone. The ability to produce and use base-load power allows an ammonia loop to operate conventionally. If you depend on fluctuating wind and solar generation, even with hydrogen buffering, the ammonia loop has to adapt. Historically, ammonia plants were not designed for that level of fluctuation. We're advancing the two projects simultaneously and are currently carrying out pre-FEED work. Significant synergies between them mean we can develop relatively similar plant designs.
Is the Quebec project the most recent addition to the portfolio?
Yes. Quebec is a natural choice when you look at the regions we've explored across Europe, Brazil and Canada. It's not only a strategic choice but also one that follows a clear decarbonisation logic. Green molecules should first be developed in regions where the grid mix is already renewable. That approach suits a company like ours. We're not a large renewable developer entering hydrogen and ammonia. We are a focused hydrogen company, which helps us stay specialised.
What is the company's focus for the next 12-18 months?
We feel that we have built a very competitive and promising portfolio for projects. While bringing our projects to FID is the clear goal, we are also looking for partners both on investment and technology, and mainly on the offtake side.
What are the main challenges in developing these projects?
We've designed our projects with ease of execution in mind, so from a local development perspective, we have not encountered major challenges. Technical studies, permitting and engineering have progressed relatively smoothly. The key challenge across all projects is the offtake market. Regulation plays a critical role, and regulatory uncertainty over the past few years has been the main hurdle for investment. RED III for industry has still not been fully implemented in many markets, while transport targets were implemented with significant delays. There has also been uncertainty around the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism [CBAM] and the exclusion of fertilisers. We are seeing some improvement, but without clear regulation, the financial incentive for offtakers to procure green molecules remains limited.
Skipavika is a good example. We completed FEED in 2024 and, in a more mature regulatory environment, would probably already be in construction. We believe early movers can gain a real advantage by building expertise, project maturity and operational knowledge before the market scales up.
As an ammonia producer, what would you like to see in terms of regulation?
We welcome the implementation of RED III transport targets. Even though transport is not necessarily the most natural market for ammonia, it is still a positive signal. At the same time, hydrogen, and especially ammonia, has a primary role to play in hard-to-abate sectors where electrification is not an option. Fertilisers and chemicals are natural markets, and replacing grey ammonia with green ammonia is one of the most effective decarbonisation pathways.
What we would like to see is RED III industry implementation moving ahead as quickly as possible. Proposals such as the Spanish approach, where renewable fuel of non-biological origin credits generated in industry can contribute towards transport targets, seem pragmatic. We would welcome similar initiatives elsewhere. Another possibility is to shift more of the burden towards the consumer side, reducing the impact on industrial competitiveness. The willingness of traditional ammonia customers to pay a premium has increased largely due to CBAM implementation. Shipping has also shown growing interest, particularly through FuelEU Maritime.
Of course, ammonia can also be used as a transport medium and then cracked back into hydrogen, for example for refineries. That is less efficient, but if incentives and regulations drive the market in that direction, it is still better than no decarbonisation. Ultimately, we remain open-minded regarding end-use markets.
How do you view the effect of recent geopolitical developments?
Disruptions and conflicts have increased the cost of fossil-based alternatives. That strengthens the competitiveness of green molecules. We believe this price pressure is likely to persist. A significant share of ammonia and LNG supply has been disrupted, and replacing that capacity will take time. Overall, we expect the ammonia market to remain relatively tight over the medium term, supporting higher prices and strengthening the economic case for green ammonia. The current situation also shows the importance of strengthening local production and choosing the right partners. From a European perspective, as we decarbonise and we focus on reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, we should also make sure that the security of supply is there and we don't replace one dependency with another.
How do you evaluate ammonia cracking technology and developments for this?
The good news, which is normally bad news but in this case can be positive, is that production assets take a long time to develop and build. Cracking infrastructure will also require time, but from what we hear, construction timelines may be somewhat shorter than for production facilities, helping simplify supply-chain development. We are confident that ammonia cracking capacity is materialising, the technology is advancing rapidly and its efficiency is becoming increasingly well understood.
