THE question of LNG is a tricky one.

Before MEPC83 it looked like the alternative fuel with the most momentum. 

It’s (relatively) cheap and plentiful, reduces NOx and SOx, and cuts CO2 emissions by a bit. The world is going to burn a lot more of it as gas power plants replace coal plants, so why not?

Well, there is that study that found LNG is worse than coal, because of all those upstream methane leaks. A bridge fuel it may be, but a green one? No.

Engines will get better and emit less unburned methane, we’re told, so methane slip is nothing to worry about.

But then the gas industry says no, actually, we need regulation to reduce methane slip. Huh?

LNG will be the cheapest fuel option out to 2035 even with the new IMO carbon cost, according to Rystad Energy.

But what about beyond that? A ship ordered today will be working well beyond 2040. Penalties for running on gas will increase sharply, albeit not as high as those on VLFSO.

Why pay extra for the ship now when you could just use biofuel? Some companies may find bio-LNG, but there won’t be enough of that for everyone. And e-LNG? Expensive, fiddly to make, still emits methane and CO2.

The gas industry says it will figure e-LNG out, but then of course it would say that.

Making e-anything is such a horribly inefficient way to use green electricity that it’s painful to see it as the best option. But it may be the only one, unless nuclear power suddenly becomes cheap, which it probably won’t.

The regulation today isn’t going to make e-fuels happen, but it could be strengthened in future. That is to say, if the world’s big fossil fuel powers can be convinced to vote to end fossil fuels.

So, LNG? Maybe, maybe not.

Declan Bush
Senior reporter, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing