Methanol poses least operational bunker risk

Methanol for use as a marine fuel poses the least operational risk, compared with LNG, ammonia and cryogenic liquid hydrogen, a study prepared by a working group of bunker fuel market participants said.

The Future Fuels Risk Assessments study measures the risks of transporting, storing and burning LNG, methanol, ammonia and liquid hydrogen as a marine fuel. The cost of the fuels and their greenhouse gas emissions are not part of the scope of the study.

The study notes that unlike LNG and methanol, no international regulations and guidance are available for the use of hydrogen and ammonia as a marine fuel.

The study ranks the fuels in three categories: high risk (unacceptable), medium risk (tolerable) and low risk (acceptable). Methanol scored the lowest risk ratings within navigation-related scenarios, such as loss of maneuverability or excessive motions or a black-out at sea. Methanol also scored the lowest risk ranking in the scenario of vessel hull breach from collision.

LNG and hydrogen scored nearly identical risk rankings in all scenarios studied, with none falling within the intolerable risk domain. LNG fared better than hydrogen in one navigation scenario of vessel abandonment due to loss of tank pressure control, tank breach or loss of propulsion.

Ammonia was classified as intolerable in scenarios like vessel grounding or collision leading to a hull breach, cargo operations in case of damage to equipment, and leaks or loss of containment during bunkering. To bring these ammonia hazards down, the study recommends the use of safety equipment for seafarers, emergency crew training on fuel systems and guidelines on fuel system designs that mitigate risks from grounding or collisions.

The working group is comprised by APM Terminals, Carnival Corporation, Chevron, Euronav, Lloyd's Register, Maersk, MSC Ship Management, OCIMF and Shell.

By Stefka Wechsler