From the business cards he collected at Geneva Dry this week, he spoke with more than 30 dry cargo shipowners or charterers and the most frequent question they asked me was about the relative merits of FuelEU Maritime’s compliance options, Ahti Pool’s Risto Kariranta tells Splash Extra. The chief executive of one of the largest FuelEU Maritime compliance pools with more than 250 vessels under management says that at present, biofuels are the most popular alternative fuel, but that there are some dark clouds on that horizon. “We’re seeing credible reports that the forged volumes of UCO (used cooking oil) and POME (palm oil mill effluent) are huge, and the EU has begun to address the shortcomings of the ISCC certification, he asserts, noting that if we start to see a stricter approach to possible certification frauds, we’re likely to see less biofuel volume entering the markets. “This would ultimately push the prices higher – and sink the strategies of several companies who’ve put all their eggs in that basket,” Kariranta warns. For him, BioLNG is leading what we call the “advanced alternative fuel” competition. Even though the total volumes of BioLNG are still relatively small, they’re making a significant impact. Particularly, manure-based BioLNG supplies, which boast negative carbon intensities, and are generating substantial compliance volumes for FuelEU Maritime pooling. “This means that while BioLNG might not yet be the dominant fuel, its role in helping companies meet stringent emissions targets is becoming increasingly important,” Kariranta notes. Kariranta says that owners the likes of Neste and Van Weelde who joined Ahti Pool tell him that FuelEU Maritime is going to be a case study in economic pragmatism. The difference is between penalties and compliance costs is quite stark, he warns, where for example for bunkers like HFO (heavy fuel oil) and VLSFO (very low-sulphur fuel oil), FuelEU Maritime penalty costs are close to $700 per tonne of CO2 equivalent emissions. On the other hand, when companies achieve compliance through low carbon fuels or pooled compliance strategies, the costs are set to be less than half of that figure. Kariranta also notes that there are several tripwires if you take the route of least resistance for FEM compliance, such as, if you, as a charterer, accept the BIMCO clause based on the penalty cost you’re going to pay over the odds. The actual cost of producing the compliance is unlikely to be more than half of the amount quoted. He finds that the penalties for using high-emission fuels create a strong financial incentive to invest in low-carbon bunkers. “While there are hurdles, such as certification issues with biofuels, the economic incentives provided by the regulations are undeniable. The competitive edge now lies with those who can navigate these complexities and leverage their green investments most effectively.” For Kariranta, dual-fuel LNG vessels hold a strong position in FEM, especially when they have access to the best BioLNG sources as at peak, these ships can achieve costs significantly below $100/tCO2e and produce large volumes of overcompliance. “With the upcoming IMO N0F changes, low methane-slip dual-fuel LNG vessels are expected to gain popularity, and regulations seem to be shifting toward onboard measurements. Since dual-fuel LNG vessels will not remain fully compliant with fossil LNG standards for long, there is a gentle push also toward other advanced low-carbon fuels.” However, K