Bunkering

Groups of innovations

• Liquid fuels (both conventional and renewable)

  Marine gas oil (MGO), VLSFO , biofuels and synthetic diesel are transferred to vessels through existing bunker infrastructure (tanks, trucks and bunker vessels).   Timing: available; Pros: mature logistics and broad compatibility; Cons: sustainability and fuel quality must be verified, not all ports have large scale bunkering facilities, which can be used for these fuels.

• Liquefied methane bunkering

  LNG or bio-LNG (liquefied biomethane) is supplied by truck, shore facility or bunker vessel at cryogenic (-162 degrees) temperature. Existing procedures may need to be reviewed as operations and volumes grow.  Timing: available, with continued evaluation; Pros: established procedures and operational experience; Cons: methane emissions and long-term climate compatibility remain of concern. Not many ships sail at 100% LNG, but are hybrid ships and can transfer easily to another fuel (when not available or affordable)

• Methanol bunkering

  Liquid methanol can use adapted liquid-fuel bunkering facilities. Additional measures are required due to its toxicity, flammability and material compatibility. The lifecycle emissions depend on how the methanol is produced. Renewable methanol can reduce emissions, while fossil methanol may offer little or no climate benefit. Many current dual-fuel engines also require a small amount of pilot fuel for ignition. Methanol is already bunkered in leading ports and is moving towards more systematic deployment. Timing: early scale-up towards wider use around 2030. Pros: methanol is stored as a liquid at ambient temperature, and some ports can adapt existing methanol infrastructure for bunkering. Existing experience with methanol handling can also support safety procedures. Cons: dedicated safety measures are required. Its lower energy density requires more storage volume and may result in more frequent bunkering than conventional fuels.

• Hydrogen bunkering

  Compressed or liquid hydrogen requires specialised storage, transfer, detection and emergency systems. Truck-to-ship supply or H2 containers can support early applications, subject to location-specific approval and clear responsibilities.  Timing: short to medium term; Pros: zero carbon at point of use; Cons: high cost, low volumetric density (many bunker calls needed) and demanding safety requirements. Especially for liquid hydrogen (LH2) most of the infrastructure is in early development.

• Ammonia bunkering

  Ammonia (either cooled or pressurized) requires closed transfer systems, toxic-release controls, safety zones and trained emergency response. Early deployment is expected on a project basis, with larger-scale bunkering more likely after 2030.  Timing: project-based pilots before wider deployment; Pros: carbon-free at point of use, some ports have ammonia infrastructure (incl. safety conditions) available, which partly can be used for bunkering; Cons: toxicity, public acceptance and limited operational experience regarding bunkering of ammonia require careful management.

  MAGPIE Ammonia Bunkering Pilot →

• Digital coordination, assurance and certification

  Digital systems support bunker planning, permits, checklists, fuel-quality records and lifecycle-emission reporting. They can also document the fuel’s origin, production pathway and sustainability certification. Mass Flow Meters and digital bunker delivery notes verify the quantity delivered. Due diligence and audits help ensure that bunker operators work safely and comply with applicable requirements. Timing: immediate, but implementation depends on the port’s digital maturity. Pros: improves traceability, transparency and planning. Cons: requires reliable systems, interoperable data and clear data ownership.