Methanol conversions cheaper, suggests Maersk research

The Maersk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping weighing up ‘preparation and conversion’ for zero- or neutral-carbon fuels versus buying newbuilds outright, believes it has pinpointed the cost of a conversion in the case of typical very large crude carrier (VLCC) and long range (LR2) tanker.

The research weighs up trade-offs in range and cargo space, finding that the former is the more “commercially applicable” compromise. Meanwhile, the cost premium of converting a fuel-oil powered LR2 to dual-fuel-methanol later in its life would be lower (up to 27%) compared with converting it for dual-fuel ammonia (up to 42%). Similarly, on a VLCC, costs would be as high as 29% for the methanol conversion, and up to 45% for ammonia.

The cost of converting an LNG-ammonia dual-fuelled vessel, in either case, was the highest, at up to 62% and 63%, respectively. It would seem that methanol conversion offers the best value, proving, “in general, the most cost-effective option” for tankers, the Center concludes.

But true retrofit costs could still be uncertain. In a recent interview, one technical manager at engine-maker MAN Energy Solutions told SRN that the definition of a conversion-’ready’ vessel was nebulous. “From our point of view, [ammonia engine development] is still a research and development project. What is the industry preparing for? ‘Ammonia-ready’… could mean anything,” he said.