LNG Bunker Lobby Issues Full Response to Criticism of its Benchmark GHG Study

Thinkstep has released and addendum to its earlier study. Image Credit: Thinkstep

The LNG bunker lobby has issued its full response to criticism of the well-to-wake emissions study at the heart of its position on lifecycle GHG emissions from the use of LNG bunkers.

The study was released in April having been conducted by Thinkstep on behalf of LNG bunker advocate groups SEA\LNG and The Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel (SGMF).

The six page addendum confirms the trio are happy with the the study, the assumptions it uses, and its ultimate conclusion that using LNG can provide lifecycle GHG savings of up to 21% compared with current oil-based bunkers.

The criticism in question came from SINTEF Ocean's respected Chief Scientist, Dr. Elizabeth Lindstad, who earlier this year questioned a number of the study's assumptions. By her calculations, only 2–stroke high pressure dual fuel engines would result in GHG savings compared to using MGO or HFO.

If nothing else, the back-and-forth between Thinkstep and Lindstad highlights that science alone may not be able to provide a yes/no, right/wrong conclusion to the ongoing debate on LNG's GHG footprint. Indeed, the issue is not that the science on either side of the argument is fundamentally flawed, but rather there is a disagreement on what is the most applicable science to use.

For example, Lindstad believes that HFO's share of a refinery's energy consumption is essentially "next to nothing" as it is a byproduct of a refining process where the principal goal is to convert crude into higher priced products.

Thinkstep disagrees: "If HFO were not a valuable product (i.e. impacting emissions at the refinery), one could conclude that one should use HFO, because it can be produced without any refinery emission. A clearly misleading conclusion," it says in the addendum released today, but notes also that there is "no simple right or wrong answer."

Similarly, Lindstad questioned assumptions used in the calculation of engine efficiencies and methane emissions. In today's response, Thinkstep has reiterated it believes the methodologies it used are appropriate.

"As more owners shift to clean, sulphur-free LNG fuel we will see the added benefits of reduced emissions of NOx and especially Particulate Matter on global air quality and we will be better able to quantify the GHG benefits through actual operational data and experience. As this process continues we are more convinced than ever of the robustness of the life-cycle GHG emissions study that SEA\LNG and SGMF commissioned," SEA\LNG said in a statement released today alongside Thinkstep's addendum.

Whether Thinkstep's response bring us any closer to a consensus on LNG's GHG footprint remains to seen, but what it does highlight - perhaps most importantly for stakeholders - is that the debate is being conducted with a high level of transparency.

Thinkstep's full response can be read here: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/2591272/ts-SEA-LNG%20and%20SGMF%20-%20Addendum-Sept.2019_v1.0.pdf