SEA-LNG Backed Study Shows GHG Intensity of LNG Lower Than FuelEU Baseline

Upstream operations account for 30% of LNG’s well-to-tank emissions intensity. Image Credit: Sea-LNG

A new study by research firm Rystad Energy, commissioned by gas lobby SEA-LNG, has found that the global well-to-tank (WtT) emissions intensity for LNG used as a marine fuel stood at 13.9 gCO2e/MJ in 2024.

The figure comes in well below the 18.5 gCO2e/MJ default value applied under the EU's FuelEU Maritime regulation, raising questions over whether policy is overstating LNG's footprint.

The analysis maps emissions across the bunker chain - upstream production, transport and processing, liquefaction, shipping and distribution.

Liquefaction emerged as the single largest contributor to LNG's well-to-tank footprint, responsible for about 43% of total emissions intensity.

Upstream gas production was the next-largest contributor at 30% of overall intensity, but unlike liquefaction, its profile is heavily shaped by methane.

Methane alone accounted for 16% of the total WtT footprint, with more than a third of upstream emissions linked to fugitive methane releases.

This makes upstream operations the critical battleground for reducing LNG's non-CO2 greenhouse gas burden, with Rystad pointing to methane abatement as the most effective pathway for near-term improvement.

"The number of stages in each of the value chains can vary significantly, depending on where, and at what point in the value chain, bunkering takes place," the findings found.

"Loading fuel into an LNG fuelled vessel directly at the point of production can significantly reduce overall well-to-tank emissions by around 2.5 g CO2e/MJ."

Rystad's approach used asset-level data linking gas fields to liquefaction plants and incorporated satellite-detected methane plume data, offering a more detailed picture than previous averages.

SEA-LNG said the findings show the need for regularly updated regulatory factors and for policies that reward actual emissions reductions rather than rely on conservative assumptions.