Maritime Bunkering Alternatives: LNG, Ammonia, Methanol – Infrastructure Hurdles

Explore bunkering alternatives in shipping: LNG, ammonia, and methanol. Learn infrastructure hurdles, safety issues, real-world cases, and future trends.

On a cold morning in Rotterdam, one of the world’s busiest ports, a tanker docks not for heavy fuel oil—the staple of shipping for decades—but for liquefied natural gas (LNG). Nearby, new bunkering trials with methanol and research projects on ammonia show the rapid shift in marine fuels. The global shipping industry, responsible for carrying over 80% of world trade (UNCTAD, 2023), is under immense pressure to decarbonize.

The IMO’s 2023 GHG Strategy commits the sector to reaching net-zero by 2050, pushing alternative fuels to the forefront. Yet, while these fuels promise lower emissions, their widespread adoption hinges on one critical factor: bunkering infrastructure.

Without adequate, safe, and standardized fueling systems in ports, ships cannot transition smoothly to LNG, methanol, or ammonia. The challenge is not just technical—it’s economic, regulatory, and operational. For many ports, investing millions into infrastructure for fuels that may or may not dominate the future is a high-stakes gamble.

This article explores the bunkering alternatives of LNG, ammonia, and methanol, focusing on infrastructure hurdles, safety concerns, innovations, case studies, and future trends. It is designed for maritime professionals, students, and industry enthusiasts seeking a comprehensive yet accessible guide.

Why This Topic Matters in Maritime Operations

The global transition to alternative fuels is more than a sustainability issue—it’s a strategic challenge for ports and shipping companies.

Decarbonization Pressure: Shipping contributes ~3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and projections suggest it could rise to 5–8% by 2050 without intervention (IMO, 2023). Alternative fuels are vital to meet international climate goals.

Safety and Risk Management: Bunkering operations are already among the most hazardous shipboard and port activities. Introducing fuels such as ammonia (toxic), hydrogen (highly flammable), and methanol (invisible flame fires) adds complexity.

Economic Competitiveness: Ports that adapt quickly to alternative fuels could secure a competitive edge in global trade. Conversely, ports that lag risk losing traffic to better-equipped competitors.

Standardization Needs: Currently, there is no uniform global framework for bunkering alternative fuels, although guidelines exist from IMO, IACS, EMSA, and classification societies. Fragmentation creates uncertainty for shipowners planning fuel strategies.

In short: without bunkering readiness, decarbonization plans remain theoretical.

–

Key Developments, Innovations, or Technologies

Bunkering Infrastructure Challenges for Alternative Fuels

The shipping industry’s fuel transition is not simply about engine technology—it is equally about the availability of bunkering infrastructure. For a fuel to succeed globally, it must be produced, transported, stored, and delivered safely and cost-effectively across major maritime hubs. Let us examine the three leading candidates—LNG, methanol, and ammonia—and the specific infrastructure hurdles each faces.

LNG Bunkering Infrastructure

  • Global Adoption:
    LNG is the most mature alternative fuel in terms of bunkering infrastructure. By 2024, over 200 ports worldwide offered LNG bunkering, with strong adoption in Europe (Rotterdam, Antwerp, Barcelona), Asia (Singapore, Shanghai, Tokyo), and North America (Jacksonville, Houston). According to S&P Global (2024), LNG accounts for the majority of alternative-fuel vessel deliveries, largely because infrastructure is already in place to support fleet operations.

  • Storage & Handling Needs:
    LNG must be stored at –162°C in specialized cryogenic tanks. These tanks require thick insulation and boil-off gas management systems to prevent pressure build-up. Transfer pipelines are double-walled to avoid leaks, and vaporizers are used to regulate LNG into gaseous form before combustion. This infrastructure is expensive to build but has proven durability from decades of LNG carrier operations.

  • Bunkering Methods:
    LNG can be supplied through truck-to-ship (TTS), ship-to-ship (STS), or terminal-to-ship (pipeline) methods. TTS is the most flexible for small volumes but limited in scale. STS, now common in Singapore and Northern Europe, is considered the most efficient method, enabling large transfers at anchor or alongside. However, STS requires dedicated LNG bunker vessels and port approval, raising capital costs.

  • Safety Risks:
    LNG’s hazards include cryogenic burns, vapor cloud explosions, and methane slip (release of unburned methane into the atmosphere). The IGF Code mandates strict protocols for LNG handling, including emergency shutdown (ESD) systems, exclusion zones, and redundant detection systems. Crew must undergo LNG-specific training and certification, reflecting the complexity of cryogenic fuels.

  • Innovation Example:
    Singapore has become a benchmark hub for LNG bunkering by deploying mass-flow meters (MFMs) for accurate custody transfer and automated ESD protocols to reduce human error. These measures have set global safety and efficiency standards, influencing other ports in Europe and Asia.

Methanol Bunkering Infrastructure

  • Growing Adoption:
    Methanol is rapidly catching up to LNG in terms of bunkering readiness. Rotterdam, Singapore, and several Chinese ports have already launched methanol bunkering pilot programs, while North America and Scandinavia are preparing feasibility studies. The rise of A.P. Moller-Maersk’s methanol dual-fuel containership fleet (from 2023 onwards) has accelerated adoption by forcing ports to adapt facilities to serve these vessels.

  • Storage & Handling Needs:
    Unlike LNG, methanol can be stored at ambient temperature and pressure in standard liquid fuel tanks. This makes it easier and cheaper to integrate into existing oil storage and transfer systems. However, pipelines, pumps, and seals must be upgraded to resist methanol’s corrosive and water-absorbing properties.

  • Safety Risks:
    Methanol is highly flammable and toxic if ingested or inhaled. Fires are especially dangerous because methanol burns with a nearly invisible flame, requiring specialized detection systems. In confined spaces, methanol vapors can accumulate to dangerous levels, demanding strong ventilation and monitoring protocols.

  • Infrastructure Advantage:
    The key benefit is that methanol can piggyback on existing oil bunkering infrastructure. Tank farms, pipelines, and barge systems used for gasoline or marine diesel can often be retrofitted with relatively low-cost modifications compared to LNG or ammonia. This gives methanol a clear edge in terms of short-term scalability.

  • Innovation Example:
    Maersk’s dual-fuel methanol containerships rely on adapted bunkering facilities in major hubs like Rotterdam and Singapore. These ports have introduced crew training programs, safety drills, and updated bunkering standards to accommodate methanol transfer operations. By doing so, they are proving methanol can be integrated into the existing marine fuel supply chain at a fraction of LNG’s cost.

Ammonia Bunkering Infrastructure

  • Emerging Technology:
    Ammonia remains the least mature in terms of bunkering readiness. As of 2025, no commercial-scale ammonia bunkering facilities are operational, though pilot projects are underway in Scandinavia, Japan, and Singapore. The lack of infrastructure is a major barrier to adoption, even as ammonia is promoted as a long-term zero-carbon fuel.

  • Storage & Handling Needs:
    Ammonia can be stored either under moderate pressure (10–15 bar) at ambient temperature or as a cryogenic liquid at –33°C. Both methods require corrosion-resistant tanks, pipelines, and pumps, since ammonia is highly reactive with copper, brass, and certain steels. Storage systems must also prevent leakage, as even small releases can create severe health and environmental hazards.

  • Safety Risks:
    Ammonia’s toxicity is its biggest drawback. Exposure to concentrations as low as 300 ppm can cause severe respiratory and eye damage. A large spill could threaten both crew safety and marine ecosystems. Ammonia also has explosive potential under specific pressure and temperature conditions, meaning bunkering must be tightly controlled with redundant monitoring and containment systems.

  • Infrastructure Cost:
    Ammonia bunkering is expected to be more expensive than LNG or methanol due to the need for corrosion-resistant materials, specialized ventilation systems, gas detectors, and emergency scrubbers. Insurance and liability concerns may also increase operational costs until robust safety records are established.

  • Innovation Example:
    Japan’s Green Ammonia Consortium is leading research on port and bunkering designs to enable safe handling by 2030. The project includes dedicated ammonia bunker barges, automated transfer systems, and emergency neutralization units to address accidental releases. These efforts represent the early foundation of a global ammonia bunkering network, though commercial rollout will take years.

The Infrastructure Race: Who Wins First?

  • LNG currently leads in infrastructure maturity, offering global availability but facing long-term climate concerns due to methane slip.

  • Methanol is emerging as the fastest-scaling option, with lower retrofit costs and port readiness accelerating thanks to Maersk-led demand.

  • Ammonia holds promise as a long-term zero-carbon solution but is hampered by toxic risks, high costs, and lack of bunkering facilities.

The next decade will likely see methanol and LNG dominating bunkering growth, while ammonia remains in pilot phases. However, by 2035, as safety protocols mature and zero-carbon mandates tighten, ammonia could join hydrogen as part of the deep-sea decarbonization portfolio.

–

Challenges and Practical Solutions

1. Safety Concerns

  • Problem: Handling toxic or cryogenic fuels introduces risks unfamiliar to many crews and ports.

  • Solution: Adoption of IGF Code-based training, simulation drills, and new STCW modules for alternative fuel bunkering.

2. Economic Investment

  • Problem: Ports face billions in potential infrastructure costs without certainty on which fuel will dominate.

  • Solution: Multi-fuel bunkering hubs, where infrastructure supports multiple fuels, reducing stranded asset risks.

3. Regulatory Gaps

  • Problem: No single global standard governs bunkering of ammonia or methanol.

  • Solution: IMO, EMSA, and classification societies are working on harmonized interim guidelines. By 2030, expect dedicated annexes in the IGF Code.

4. Port Readiness

  • Problem: Many ports in Asia, Africa, and South America lack capacity for even LNG, let alone ammonia or methanol.

  • Solution: Regional collaboration (e.g., European TEN-T corridors) to finance and scale shared infrastructure.

5. Public Perception and Acceptance

  • Problem: Local communities fear accidents involving toxic fuels.

  • Solution: Transparent communication, risk assessment studies, and adoption of best-available safety technologies.

Case Studies / Real-World Applications

Singapore’s Multi-Fuel Strategy

Singapore, the world’s largest bunkering hub, has rolled out LNG bunkering since 2017 and is now developing methanol and ammonia standards. This multi-fuel approach positions it as a global leader.

Rotterdam Methanol Trials

The Port of Rotterdam partnered with Maersk and methanol suppliers to conduct methanol bunkering for containerships in 2023. Early trials highlighted the importance of fire detection technologies tailored for methanol.

Scandinavian Ammonia Pilots

Norway and Denmark are leading ammonia bunkering feasibility studies, supported by DNV and Wärtsilä. Projects include dedicated storage and emergency neutralization systems.

LNG Expansion in China

China has invested heavily in LNG bunkering along the Yangtze River and coastal terminals, with over 20 operational LNG bunkering vessels by 2024.

Future Outlook & Trends

  1. Standardization Drive: IMO is expected to expand the IGF Code by 2030 to cover ammonia and methanol, creating global safety standards.

  2. Digital Safety Tools: Digital twins and AI-based risk models will become integral to port design and bunkering safety.

  3. Multi-Fuel Hubs: Major ports will adopt multi-fuel infrastructure to reduce risks of betting on the wrong fuel.

  4. Green Corridors: Initiatives like the Clydebank Declaration will link ports with standardized bunkering practices.

  5. Insurance-Driven Change: P&I Clubs will increasingly demand Risk-Based Assessment Tools (RBATs) before insuring bunkering facilities.

  6. Crew Training Evolution: Expect mandatory alternative fuel simulator training for all seafarers within the next decade.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Which alternative fuel has the biggest bunkering infrastructure today?
LNG leads, with over 200 ports worldwide offering bunkering services.

2. Why is methanol easier to store than LNG or ammonia?
It can be stored at ambient temperature in standard tanks, though fire detection is more challenging.

3. Is ammonia too dangerous for shipping?
Ammonia is highly toxic, but with the right safety infrastructure and handling protocols, it can be used safely.

4. What is the role of the IGF Code in bunkering?
The IGF Code provides safety standards for low-flashpoint fuels like LNG and will soon expand to methanol and ammonia.

5. Which ports are leading in bunkering alternatives?
Singapore, Rotterdam, and several Scandinavian ports are pioneers in LNG, methanol, and ammonia infrastructure.

6. How much investment is needed for alternative fuel bunkering?
Estimates suggest $1–1.4 trillion by 2050 to build global fuel supply chains and bunkering infrastructure.

7. Can ships use multiple alternative fuels?
Yes. Dual-fuel engines allow vessels to operate on both conventional and alternative fuels, easing the transition.

Conclusion

The future of maritime fuels is being written not only in shipyards but also in ports worldwide. LNG, methanol, and ammonia each hold potential as alternative marine fuels, but their adoption depends heavily on safe, standardized, and cost-effective bunkering infrastructure.

Ports face a difficult balancing act: invest early and risk stranded assets, or wait and risk being left behind. The answer lies in multi-fuel readiness, international collaboration, and unwavering commitment to safety.

The shipping industry cannot afford to view bunkering infrastructure as an afterthought. Instead, it must be recognized as the keel of the green transition—the foundation upon which a sustainable, safe, and competitive maritime future is built.

References

4.5/5 - (4 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *