The WBA advocated for an acceleration of biomethane uptake in the maritime sector, noting its suitability for a subset of operations in the near-term, allowing other solutions time to mature. This is highlighted in their list of recommendations, which centre around technology neutrality, certification for decarbonisation, standardisation of life-cycle assessment (LCA), recognising externalities associated with bio-LNG and further research into methane slip.

The case for biomethane is put forward on four grounds:

1. Environmental – biomethane can reduce well-to-wake emissions. The WBA claims up to 80% CO2 reduction, although if avoided emissions are considered (typically for manure as a feedstock) this can result in negative emissions. Other synergies are claimed including waste treatment and a reduction in SOx and NOx emissions.
2. Technical – biomethane is fully compatible with LNG-ready ships and infrastructure, with the number of LNG ships expected to exceed 2,000 globally, and 185 LNG bunkering facilities worldwide currently.
3. Economic – in keeping with the technical case, marine biomethane leverages existing investment in LNG (estimated at USD 10 billion globally), with domestic production helping local economies. Further, biomethane has a competitive price trajectory in comparison to e-fuels.
4. Policy – while fossil bunker fuels are still substantially cheaper than green alternatives, various policy measures will act to reduce the gap by pricing emissions directly or indirectly. This includes EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime and the IMO NZ framework.

BioLNG – the European status quo and hurdles ahead

Unlike the road sector where bioCNG is widely accepted and required, bioLNG is the only delivery vector in the maritime sector for biomethane.

According to Veyt’s estimate, there are approximately twenty biomethane plants in Europe with on-site liquefaction capability. From there, it can be transported to maritime bunkers via truck (physical separation and delivery). There are also around twenty certified liquefaction terminals in Europe, capable of maintaining mass balance chain of custody should grid-to-terminal be the preferred method of delivery – this is known as liquefaction by equivalence, or virtual liquefaction. This allows grid mixing of biomethane with fossil gas while still preserving green attributes.

The EBA suggests current bioLNG production capacity is approximately 15 TWh per year; this is only possible if (biomethane) liquefaction by equivalence is accepted given that the overall production capacity from biomethane plants with onsite liquefaction capability is low (a little over 1% of the total biomethane plants in Europe). This contrasts with grid connected plants (more than 1,500, with annual production exceeding 50 TWh).

However, while EU law technically allows mass balance via Implementing Regulation 2022/996, it is not clear whether equivalence will be readily accepted in Europe in counting towards maritime obligation targets. While most parties accept transfers via the European grid single mass-balance system, there are concerns surrounding credibility. Earlier in September, a question was put to the EC regarding competition distortion, with the potential for liquefaction by equivalence to be a loophole to overstating low-emission claims.

Nevertheless, political skepticism over liquefaction by equivalence has been pre-empted by stakeholders. On 22 September, the ISCC clarified a rule for the certification of bioLNG, which requires liquefaction terminals to cancel Proofs of Sustainability (PoSs) for the grid biomethane to be compressed, then new bioLNG PoSs to be issued which include liquefaction emissions and account for losses in the conversion process. This is key for FuelEU and ETS maritime as crediting depends strongly upon robust PoS chains.

Industry bodies are lobbying for clarity in support of bioLNG; on 25 September the Bio-LNG Platform, a 30-member consortium in the Netherlands promoting LNG and BioLNG throughout Europe, sent a letter to the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management urging them to open pathways to market for equivalence by liquefaction, in the face of negative signals from the federal government. In their arguments, they noted their North Sea neighbours Germany and Belgium had already accepted the feasibility of equivalence, and the importance of Dutch ports to the European economy. At the EU level, Energy Traders Europe and Eurogas have also issued statements in support of equivalence and, like the WBA, calling for more clarity around the certification process.

Together with ongoing development of the Union Database, harmonising the requirements and acceptability of bioLNG by equivalence will be key in encouraging maritime uptake and supply in Europe, setting a precedent which could eventually apply globally.