Home Newsroom MAX Magazine – Aski...

News

MAX Magazine – Asking all the right questions

Published on

17 January 2025

Link copied to clipboard

First featured on MAX Magazine (Maritime Industry Australia Limited)

MIAL caught up with Professor Lynn Loo – the Princeton University Chemical and Biological Engineering professor at the helm of Singapore-based Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD) – a non-profit that since 2021 has been supporting the decarbonisation of the maritime sector through pilots and trials.

Professor Loo, you’re very active on LinkedIn posting about the maritime and shipping industry – and not just in relation to decarbonisation – why is this important to you?


Shipping is, I feel, an invisible industry. Most of us only really think about shipping when a vessel hits a bridge, runs aground or when our Amazon boxes don’t arrive. But it is so much more complex than that and therefore, it is really important to contextualise shipping’s role in the global trade system.


If we aim to decarbonise this sector, we need to educate people on why this sector is hard to abate and garner as much support as we can across the value chain to bolster our efforts.

GCMD recently partnered with the Pilbara Ports Authority to deliver a successful ammonia transfer pilot at Port Dampier. Is this an indication that GCMD sees ammonia as the leading alternative fuel?


We are a team of 20 so we can only do what 20 people can do. While there are times when our focus is on ammonia, particularly our recent ammonia transfer pilots in the Pilbara, that is not our only focus.


Currently, we run a big biofuels initiative aimed at assuring the integrity of the biofuels supply chain. We have introduced tracers at production sites and tracked it throughout the supply chain to verify its origin and quantity. This provides assurance to ship owners and charterers on the emissions abatement associated with the use of the biofuel.

We are also investigating the long-term use of biofuels and their impact on engine performance and fuel delivery system.


Surveyors collecting biodiesel samples from bunkering manifold


Another key initiative is unlocking the carbon value chain. We are exploring onboard carbon capture and storage (OCCS) solutions, recognising their role to help the sector reach interim decarbonisation targets. Statistics show that even by 2050, approximately 20% or 30% of engines will still be burning fossil fuels. Therefore, we need a way to decarbonise these fleets and are exploring the economic and technology feasibility of OCCS systems.


Prof Lynn Loo onboard the Stena Impero


OCCS presents a trilemma: high CAPEX for system installations, increased OPEX due to higher fuel consumption and the need for specialised crew to operate CO2 scrubbers; and balancing the capture rate, where higher capture rate requires more fuel. It’s a technical challenge that one needs to balance with commercial considerations. This is the challenge of decarbonisation. It’s easy to theorise about decarbonisation strategies in a classroom but we have to address real-world considerations: How can we decarbonise while still making money? That is the tension one needs to balance.

How do you prioritise the work you’re doing and what roles do GCMD’s partners, such as the Pilbara Ports Authority, have to play?


By working around the clock!


But seriously, I have a really good team. We call ourselves “ecosystem orchestraters”. We would not be able to achieve our goals without a strong ecosystem of partners who lock-steps with us to accomplish the same objectives.


For example, we needed ammonia and ships at the right place and time for our pilot in the Pilbara. At one point, seven ships including two gas carriers, an AMSA vessel, tugboats, and launch boats had to be coordinated with impeccable timing. All these would not be possible without our partners’ support to contribute resources.


Another example is the gas carrier owners who had to balance their commercial interests with their participation in our pilot. Off-hiring vessels for the pilot incurred costs for them, but they were willing to do so because they share our commitment to decarbonise.

How did the Pilbara ammonia transfer pilot come about?


When GCMD was established a little over three years ago, there was a lot of discussion around ammonia’s potential as a marine fuel, but nobody was asking the hard questions about its feasibility or the safety requirements for transferring ammonia onboard a vessel and into a fuel tank.


We aimed to address this gap by focusing on safety and operational risks and completed the first safety study on ammonia bunkering, focused on Singapore, where GCMD is based. Additionally, we developed a competency framework to train crew to handle ammonia as a marine fuel.


We chose to focus the safety study on Singapore because it is the largest bunkering hub in the maritime sector. Its bunkering volume exceeds the combined volume of the next nine bunkering hubs.

We reasoned that if the study shows that ammonia bunkering can be done in Singapore, it could be done in other parts of the world as well. The study found that while risks exist, they can be mitigated and there was no red light not to proceed.


While exploring a pilot in Singapore, we also engaged with Australian ports, given the blue and green ammonia projects coming online there. The Pilbara Port Authority (PPA) was there from the beginning, which was great because then they could contextualise the challenges in the Pilbara.


A tripartite was formed between GCMD, Pilbara Ports Authority, and Yara Clean Ammonia to initiate safety studies and risk assessments.


These studies laid the groundwork for the eventual pilot. This was also when the original partnership expanded to include additional stakeholders so we can operationalise the pilot.


Hose connections between the Green Pioneer and the Navigator Global for ammonia transfer



In October you presented findings from the pilot at Pilbara Ports’ 2024 Safe Ships Safe Ports Forum – how was the reception?


This was the perfect conference to premier our findings because I was able to share directly with the broader Pilbara community. Miners, customers from across the value chain, and over 500 representatives from 80 different organisations with a stake in the Pilbara were all there.


The pilot was very well-received. But my message was: Look, that was only the first pilot, we’re not quite yet done.

There are additional gaps to close to demonstrate the feasibility of ammonia bunkering. That’s why we want to come back to the Pilbara region to do more. Pilbara is particularly suited for this pilot because it is home to the largest dry bulk port exporting iron ore. This region is also exporting 5% of global tradeable ammonia.


Bulk carriers that carry iron ore from Port Hedland to ports in China usually wait at anchorage for their turn to load cargo; the availaibility of ammonia in this region and the ecosystem familiarity with handling ammonia presents a unique opportunity to develop bunkering operations here.


Safety is obviously a key consideration when working with substances such as ammonia – how have you approached safety considerations?


One always needs to take a risk-based approach to mitigate the risks to the lowest possible level.


I take inspiration and courage from looking at past precedents. If you look at chlorine, it is a super toxic gas. In fact, it was used as a weapon (chlorine gas), but we figured out how to use it safely. Today, it’s used as a disinfectant and as a chemical feedstock. And we have learnt to transport chlorine safely.


Look at silane gas. It’s even more toxic than chlorine. It kills. But we figured out how to use it in microelectronics cleanrooms.


People wear protective suits not to protect themselves but to protect the silicon wafers and the chips they are making. My point is, it is inconvenient to be in one of these suits but we have figured out how to work safely under restraint and in a confined space with silane gas.


I acknowledge being on a ship is much more challenging but never underestimate human ingenuity. Once we understand the molecule, we can cater safety precautions according to its physical properties.

Is ammonia like liquified natural gas? Maybe some aspects of it because it is a cold gas. But LNG is more flammable than toxic, while ammonia is more toxic than it is flammable, so we need to cater to these differences and come up with appropriate safety measures and emergency response protocols.


Thinking of ammonia as an example, what are the hurdles that must be overcome before alternative fuels can be used as a bona-fide marine fuel?

Using ammonia as a marine fuel is a new application, so elements along the entire supply chain have to be developed. While there are established supply chains for its use as a fertiliser and feedstock, its application as a marine fuel necessitates significant infrastructure development.


This includes constructing storage containers at ports, building ammonia-powered ships and safe engine rooms. Additionally, regulations and safety guidelines need to be developed.


That is why I was excited to see the articulation of some of these safety guidelines. The International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code) currently applies to ammonia as a cargo, but there is no specific International Code for Ships using Gases or Other Lowflashpoint Fuels (IGF Code) for ammonia as a marine fuel.


While gas carriers are likely to be the first vessels to use ammonia as a fuel, the codes need to be updated for them to do that.

There have been conversations at the IMO sub-committee on carriage of cargoes and containers to update these codes to accommodate ammonia as a marine fuel.


During these meetings, threshold numbers for enclosed areas and enclosed spaces were finalised, differentiating between ventilated and non-ventilated areas. Additionally, thresholds for alarms were established. And to boon, these thresholds are consistent with those we specified for our pilot. Slowly but surely we are moving in the right direction. In parallel, the Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel is developing preliminary bunkering guidelines and these guidelines are also consistent with what we have used in our pilot.

How important is the outcome of discussions at IMO on a potential global bunker price and fuel standard (i.e. market based measures)?

Absolutely important! What initially attracted me to shipping is the idea that shipping is a global industry regulated by a single entity, the IMO. So, if the IMO establishes a rule, policy, or regulation—including a pricing mechanism and fuel standard— the industry has to comply.


Take for example regulations on the use SOx scrubbers. As soon as it was ratified by the IMO, the entire industry complied, demonstrating the beauty of a global industry.


In contrast, I came from looking at the power sector, which faces fragmentation challenges due to varying regulations across jurisdictions. With shipping, hopefully, if the rules come from the IMO, you won’t have that issue. The floating nature of shipping assets mean they can load anywhere so regional policies, prices and fuel centres will create a chaotic landscape.


Look at the Fuel EU and EU Maritime which have come in – they are going to create an uneven playing field, potentially increasing costs for European shipping operations and the sector. It is therefore important that the global policy supersedes regional policy when it is enforced.


Thinking about ship owners seeking to invest in the future, what’s your advice to someone who needs to order a new ship today, what vessel should they build?

It depends. That might sound like a copout, but it’s not meant to be. Balancing commercial considerations is crucial, and these considerations vary among different companies. What I can say is that we need to build in optionality with an eye towards future regulations.


We need to build a ship that is as efficient as possible with today’s technology and then build in optionality for alternative fuels. Additionally, we should take advantage of energy-efficient technologies that can be implemented today. Unless you are a super front runner, I would not recommend that you go all out and build an ammonia fueled ship today because the infrastructure is not there.

What’s your prediction for the future of marine fuels?


I think what we’re looking at is a multi-fuel future.


I don’t think we will transition from fuel oil to, say, 100% ammonia. That sounds like a bigger leap than it really is. In reality, shipping is already a multi-fuel industry. You have VLSFO, HFSO, biofuels and LNG. The future will involve a shift from one multi-fuel scenario to a different multi-fuel scenario.


Do you have a message for potential partners who may be reading this?

The only way we can achieve our goals is by engaging broadly within and across the sector. It’s crucial for us to understand both internal and external challenges to ensure robust project scoping.


We listen intently to identify pain points and barriers; conduct our pilots or studies with like-minded partners; and share our findings transparently. We are open to collaboration – so call us, we’re happy to engage.

Join mailing list

Subscribe to stay in the know about GCMD’s latest news, insights, events and more!

Your contact details

Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required

For details on how we collect and use your personal information, refer to our data protection policy.