It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
BP, Shell, Exxon, and Chevron are boosting fossil fuel investments after disappointing returns on green energy ventures.
BP is increasing oil and gas spending by 25% and Shell is prioritizing LNG growth.
U.S. supermajors stayed the course and are now outperforming.
Ever since BP admitted that its attempt to go green had ended in a disaster, the flow of news from the energy industry has been in one single direction: back to oil and gas, which make money. Indeed, Big Oil has finally accepted it will not transform into Big Green Power and has gone back to what it does best: hydrocarbons.
In late February, when it made its very unsurprising admission, BP said it would boost spending on oil and gas production by 25% annually while slashing investments in transition-related business by 70%. The new strategy did not come easily to BP’s leadership, by the way. It came as the result of a pressure campaign from activist investor Elliot Management, which called BP out on its unrealistic expectations from the transition gamble.
As part of turnaround plans, the supermajor eyes launching an impressive 27 new oil and gas projects over the next five years, the FT reported in an overview of the company’s midterm strategy, noting, however, that even with these projects, BP’s 2030 oil and gas production will be slightly lower than its 2019 production—per plans. The important bit, however, is that it will not be reducing this production as it previously intended to do amid its green pivot.
Now, while BP has made no special mention of natural gas as a focus for its strategy, the overall shift in targets to refocus on the core business speaks volumes, and these volumes are not in favor of switching from hydrocarbons to electricity. The supermajor just announced the final investment decision on a Trinidad and Tobago gas project, due to start producing in two years with a peak output of 62,000 barrels of oil equivalent daily. It also got an approval from the Iraqi government to start the development of two oil fields in the north. BP is very much back
Meanwhile, Shell is acting like it never left. Another troubled European supermajor, the Anglo-Dutch company has had a less winding path to the realization that any massive bets on an energy transition from hydrocarbons to the weather are high-risk. Shell was ordered by a court to cut its oil and gas production to reduce emissions, but it got lucky with its appeal, and the second court struck down that order right about the time it was becoming clear investments in wind and solar were not living up to expectations.
Now, Shell is focusing on gas. The company recently updated its immediate plans, reducing its spending target for the next three years and prioritizing natural gas. Between 2025 and 2028, the supermajor plans to spend between $20 and $22 billion, which is down from a 2023 annual spending plan of between $22 and 25 billion per year. For its production targets, Shell is eyeing a 4-5% increase in annual LNG sales in the years until 2030.
Despite this return to business as usual—which the U.S. supermajors never departed from—some commentators continue to argue that the days of the oil and gas industry are numbered. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, arguments are being put forward that the energy transition is “unstoppable”, that it is successfully displacing oil and gas, and that the traditional energy business is doomed, despite the right short-term outlook. In this context, “short term” actually refers to at least two decades.
In truth, the fact that Exxon, Chevron, and the rest of the big U.S. oil and gas players have been consistently outperforming their European peers is evidence enough that the above arguments are questionable, to put it mildly. The supermajors that continued to focus on their core business while making some concessions to the transition camp but without overexerting themselves financially have done a lot better than the green pivoters in Europe.
Exxon is planning to boost its oil and gas production by 18% over the next five years—to which end it will increase spending, defying the argument that Big Oil is cutting spending because it knows oil is doomed. Chevron is in the process of buying Hess Corp. and its prolific assets in Guyana, and it just started a major expansion at the Tengiz field in Kazakhstan that will add 260,000 bpd to the mammoth field’s production. American Big Oil does not seem to be buying the peak oil scare.
Neither does the company that may be the one exception to the rule that the transition doesn’t work for Big Oil. TotalEnergies has been an enthusiastic adopter of a diversification away from oil and gas, and into low-carbon electricity. However, while doing this, the French supermajor has somehow managed to keep focused on its core business. In a recent update, TotalEnergies boasted substantial emission reductions while booking the highest return on average capital employed among its peers, at 14.8%. As luck and reality would have it, TotalEnergies’ EACOP project in Uganda just got the first tranche of much-needed financing. Peak oil is still not on the horizon if the biggest in the business and their plans are any indication.
New LNG projects on the U.S. Gulf and East Coasts face substantial risks due to unpredictable capital costs, labor shortages, and long project timelines that coincide with uncertain market demand.
The reliance of U.S. natural gas production on associated gas from oil wells makes the LNG export market vulnerable to fluctuations in oil prices and potential domestic supply constraints.
Global competition from LNG projects in Canada, Mexico, Alaska, and other regions, along with evolving energy policies in Europe and Asia, creates significant uncertainty for the long-term viability of U.S. LNG expansion.
Major long-term capital investments require predictable profitability and stable capital costs. For the eight large-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects proposed on the U.S. Gulf and East Coasts, both of these factors appear increasingly uncertain. Capital Cost Uncertainty and Workforce Challenges
One of the biggest risks for these projects is unpredictable capital costs. The Biden administration and President Donald Trump have imposed tariffs on steel and critical energy infrastructure components, but future tariff rates remain uncertain. LNG facilities require specialty materials, such as high-cost cryogenic steel, which could be subject to tariffs of 25%, 50%, or even higher. This could significantly increase construction costs.
Another challenge is labor availability. Building large LNG facilities requires a substantial skilled workforce willing to relocate. With multiple ongoing projects and a limited labor pool, competition for workers will drive up wages and could lead to project delays. Long Project Timelines and Market Uncertainty
LNG projects typically take five years to complete after a Final Investment Decision (FID), meaning that investments today must forecast profitability starting around 2030. While permitting under the Trump administration may not be an issue, global LNG supply and demand from 2030 to 2045 remain uncertain.
Unlike many global LNG projects that rely on stranded natural gas with little domestic competition, U.S. LNG exports depend on a vast but historically volatile internal market. The Gulf and East Coast LNG sites also face hurricane risks, which could lead to long-term force majeure events and rising insurance costs.
The Role of Associated Gas and Future Supply Constraints
The U.S. natural gas market relies heavily on associated gas production from oil wells. Currently, about 25% of U.S. natural gas production comes from fracked oil wells in the Permian (20%), Bakken (3%), and Eagle Ford (5.5%) basins. Unlike conventional gas fields, where production declines slowly, fracked wells see rapid declines after just a few years.
If oil drilling slows due to falling global prices, U.S. natural gas production could drop sharply. If this coincides with increased domestic gas demand for power generation, LNG exports may face restrictions to protect U.S. energy security. A future administration could impose limits on LNG exports rather than allowing market forces to dictate supply and demand. Geopolitical Risks and the U.S. as an Unreliable Supplier
Foreign buyers of LNG must also consider geopolitical risks. The United States has recently demonstrated a willingness to disrupt trade agreements. Given the scale of U.S. LNG exports, foreign buyers may choose to avoid over-reliance on a single, potentially unpredictable supplier.
Canada is already shifting its ~8 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) of gas exports from the U.S. to LNG exports aimed at East Asia. This will further tighten the U.S. domestic market, potentially impacting prices for U.S. Gulf and East Coast LNG projects.
Meanwhile, Mexico is increasing its natural gas pipeline imports from the U.S., both for domestic use and for LNG exports via its own Pacific Coast LNG projects. A 2 bcf/d pipeline from the Permian Basin is nearing FID, with another 2 bcf/d pipeline planned. This could create additional competition for U.S. Gulf Coast projects in the Asia-Pacific LNG market.
Global Competition
LNG from the U.S. Gulf and East Coasts faces intense competition from other global projects:
Canada’s Pacific Coast: A 5 bcf/d pipeline serving a 1.85 bcf/d LNG plant in British Columbia is set to start operations this year, with a second 1.85 bcf/d phase planned. A smaller LNG facility near Vancouver is already under construction.
Mexico’s Pacific Coast: A major LNG plant sourcing gas from the Permian Basin is under development. More LNG facilities could be built after 2030.
Alaska’s LNG Projects: Former President Trump is pushing a $44 billion LNG project on Alaska’s southern coast. If Japan and other Asian buyers commit, 3.1 bcf/d could come online well before 2045.
Guyana, West Africa, and the Mediterranean: These regions are developing LNG projects that could compete with U.S. exports to the Atlantic Basin.
Pipeline Alternatives to Europe: The EU’s reliance on LNG could decline if Russian pipelines are reactivated or if new supplies from Iraq, Iran, or Turkmenistan become available.
The LNG Market in Europe and Asia
The European Union and the UK remain committed to reducing carbon emissions, which may put pressure on long-term natural gas demand. While LNG remains critical for energy security, renewables and hydrogen are projected to displace natural gas over time.
In Asia, the market remains in flux. Russia is pushing the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline to China, although China is demanding steep discounts. Meanwhile, Turkmenistan is debating whether to sell more gas east to China or west to the EU. Australia continues to modestly expand its LNG export capacity, providing stable competition.
Critically, LNG projects in Canada, Mexico, and Alaska can serve Asian markets more efficiently than Gulf and East Coast projects. They benefit from shorter shipping distances, lower costs, and no reliance on the increasingly expensive and congested Panama Canal. Additionally, Gulf and East Coast LNG projects face hurricane risks that could disrupt operations for months or even years. Investment Risks and Long-Term Viability
Given these uncertainties, the massive U.S. LNG expansion proposed may face a smaller and more competitive market than anticipated. Some financial risks can be mitigated through long-term contracts, but they cannot be eliminated entirely.
Prospective investors will need to carefully weigh the potential for cost overruns, supply chain disruptions, and global competition. While LNG demand is expected to remain strong in the near term, the landscape beyond 2030 presents significant challenges for Gulf and East Coast projects.
Two years after previewing the Sea Zero project to develop the world’s most energy-efficient cruise ship, Hurtigruten and its partners report the design has been refined through a series of model tests. Hurtigruten wants to design a ship that can sail without emissions in normal operation on the Norwegian coast from around 2030.
The project reports it completed a new phase of rigorous testing using digital simulations and physical trials in Trondheim, at the Norwegian research institute SINTEF Ocean’s facilities. In addition, Vard Design, DNV, Brunvoll, Plug, Corvus Enegery, and others are also participating in the project. Involving the partners, the recent testing worked to evaluate large battery packs, retractable sails, air lubrication systems, contra-rotating propellers, and an energy-optimized hull.
“We are learning a lot from these tests, and we now see that many of the ambitious goals in this project can also be implemented in practice,” said Gerry Larsson-Fedde, Chief Operating Officer at Hurtigruten.
Following months of design work and testing, they report the ship design has been further refined. The ship is now eight meters longer (143.5 meters/471 feet total) and slightly wider than earlier versions of the concept. The height has also been reduced by one deck to among other things provide better stability. The design has been reduced from three to two retractable solar sails.
Model testing is helping to refine the design (Hurtigruten)
The Sea Zero concept aims to cut energy between 40-50 percent compared to today’s ships. The companies report that the sails alone could reduce energy consumption by 10 to 15 percent. With that reduction, they report that batteries charged with shore power connectivity in key ports could make emission-free operations possible.
"With the reduction in energy use we’re aiming for, it’s realistic to fit a battery system with enough energy to allow the ship to sail between charging ports under normal weather conditions," said Trond Johnsen, Project Manager for Sea Zero.
Committed to setting a higher standard for more sustainable travel initiatives, Hurtigruten highlights that its fleet currently includes four battery-hybrid powered ships, while it also prioritizes energy efficiency and responsible waste management. Through the ambitious Sea Zero project, Hurtigruten aims to develop its first ship that can sail emissions-free in normal operations on the Norwegian coast and in response to Norway’s tightening regulations for shipping emissions.
Norway’s Parliament last year finalized rules setting a phased-in schedule to move coastal shipping and vessels operating in the fjords to zero emissions. Cruise ships and ferries under 10,000 gross tons will have to operate with zero emissions by January 1, 2026. For the large ships, the implementation is scheduled for January 1, 2032.
First Ammonia-Fueled Tug Completes Three Months Demonstrating GHG Reduction
Three month demonstration results confirmed a nearly total reduction in GHG emissions for the ammonia-fueled tugboat (NYK)
The world’s first commercial-use ammonia-fueled vessel, Sakigake, completed a three-month demonstration voyage. Engaged in tugboat operations in Tokyo Bay, NYK which owns the vessel reports it achieved a GHG-emission reduction of up to approximately 95 percent. They believe it illustrates the potential of ammonia as a maritime fuel.
The 272-ton tug Sakigake, which was built in 2015 as Japan’s first LNG-fueled tug, was selected for the pioneering project. When it was introduced a decade ago, the tug which is 122 feet (37 meters) in length was viewed as a proof of concept for alternative fuel operations in the class. It is again taking that role for ammonia-fueled propulsion.
The conversion program for the vessel was completed by Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK) and IHI Power Systems Co. on August 23, 2024. They worked in cooperation with Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (ClassNK) as part of a Green Innovation Fund Project sponsored by Japan’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).
The development project of this vessel started in October 2021 as part of NEDO’s Green Innovation Fund Project which provided for the “development of vessels equipped with domestically produced ammonia-fueled engines.” The companies worked together to develop the designs and ultimately removed the LNG-fueled propulsion system to replace it with the new ammonia-fueled propulsion. Sakigake became the world’s first commercial-use ammonia-fueled vessel following Fortescue which converted an offshore support vessel and completed certification for its ammonia system earlier in 2024.
NYK Group company Shin-Nippon Kaiyosha operated Sakigake in a three-month demonstration voyage while conducting tugboat operations in Tokyo Bay. NYK and IPS analyzed the ammonia co-firing and GHG-reduction rates during vessel operations and confirmed it consistently exceeded 90 percent. Depending on engine load rates, they were also able to achieve a 95 percent reduction in GHG emissions.
After having completed this first demonstration, the vessel will continue to be used for tugboat operations in Tokyo Bay. NYK reports it will continue to accumulate knowledge related to the development and operation of ammonia-fueled vessels.
NYK, Japan Engine Corporation, IPS, and Nippon Shipyard Co. are working together to develop an ammonia-fueled ammonia gas carrier, which is scheduled to be delivered in November 2026. This project is also sponsored by NEDO’s Green Innovation Fund Project and is part of NYK’s efforts to develop and introduce next-generation fueled vessels.
Thursday, March 27, 2025
Greenpeace Blocks LNG Gas Carriers off Belgium in Fossil Gas Protest
Activists from the group Greenpeace staged two demonstrations today, March 27, temporarily blocking gas carriers arriving from the U.S. and Russia. It was done as part of a campaign by the well-known group against fossil fuels and the EU’s lack of progress on ending Russian and other gas imports.
The campaigners are urging Europe to become energy independent by transitioning to renewables. They said ending fossil gas imports is crucial for safety and security.
The group in its inflatable boats and supported by its mothership Arctic Sunrise first targeted the Marshall Islands-registered gas carrier Marvel Swallow. The 93,510 dwt vessel was recently placed in service by Japan’s Mitsui O.S.K. Lines. It was coming from Louisiana in the United States with a shipment of gas bound for Zeebrugge, Belgium.
The group circled and ran alongside the gas carrier displaying banners for the photo ops. Among the banners they were displaying were ones reading “Their gas, your cash.” The group reports it briefly interrupted the voyage of the gas carrier but it later docked in Belgium.
“Autocrats like Putin fund their wars with gas revenues, while political bullies like Trump use their dominance as gas suppliers to pressure European countries economically and politically. Meanwhile, families and communities struggle with soaring energy bills and extreme weather fueled by fossil gas,” said Joeri Thijs, spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium speaking from aboard Arctic Sunrise. “This dependence leaves us all vulnerable. Energy sovereignty through renewables is no longer just an environmental necessity, it is a matter of security.”
Greenpeace cited data from IEEFA (Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis saying despite promises from EU politicians gas imports from Russia grew 18 percent in 2024 with the EU spending €21.9 billion on gas. It reports 45 percent of Europe’s gas supply is coming from the U.S. making America Europe’s largest supplier.
Hours later the group returned to the waterways targeting the Cyprus-flagged Fedor Litke. The 96,839 dwt gas carrier was inbound for Sabetta, Russia. It is operated by Dynagas of Greece.
The second protest was to call attention to the new EU sanctions implemented on March 26 that aim to restrict Russian gas imports. Greenpeace highlights that one of the goals is to stop carriers such as the Fedor Litke coming from Siberia and transferring gas at either Zeebrugge or Montoir-de-Bretagne, France as part of a transshipment program to deliver gas across Europe.
The group which is well known for these activities asserts the EU must stop the persistent delays in phasing out Russian fossil fuels imports. They note EU officials under pressure from Donald Trump are considering increasing US LNG imports.
With Europe’s LNG imports declining and gas demand down 20 percent since 2021, Greenpeace says the EU must accelerate its shift away from gas imports. Greenpeace is urging a full phase-out of fossil gas by 2035 and a commitment to clean, independent energy.
Wednesday, March 26, 2025
Delfin Receives MARAD Approval for FLNG Export Terminal in U.S. Gulf
FLNG developer Delfin has secured a long-sought license from the Maritime Administration to install a three-unit FLNG liquefaction hub in the U.S. Gulf, based around existing infrastructure.
Its proposed Delfin LNG project centers on the UTOS pipeline, or U-T Offshore System. The pipeline runs from Cameron Parish out into the U.S. Gulf, and was originally built to bring gas from offshore wells back to land for processing and sale. Former owner Enbridge shut down the pipeline in 2011 as gas flows reduced to levels that were no longer commercially viable; Delfin bought it in 2014 and filed an application with the Department of Energy to use it as an export line for an FLNG complex.
Delfin's plan is to reverse the direction of flow in the existing line and sell now-abundant supplies of U.S. natural gas to foreign buyers via a floating export terminal. At the seaward end would be as many as three anchored FLNGs, capable of up to 13 million tonnes per annum of output, and situated in water deep enough to accommodate fully laden LNG carriers alongside.
Delfin has already arranged long-term offtake contracts with trading house Gunvor and with Chesapeake Energy, and has explored additional options with Chinese buyers. Two years ago, it entered into an agreement with Wison Offshore for the design and engineering of the FLNG units, and said that market conditions were prompting an acceleration of project plans. At the time, the objective was to be ready to begin construction on the first of the planned FLNG units by mid-2024.
Delfin had applied for an operating license from MARAD in 2015, and MARAD confirmed Friday that this piece of the puzzle has now fallen into place after a 10-year review. The license is now in hand, and it lets Delfin own, build and operate a deepwater port for LNG export purposes. Paired with its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval for exports to non-free trade agreement countries, it is now one step closer to moving forward.
For future expansion, Delfin has rights to a second, adjacent subsea gas pipeline system that could be used for a parallel development, Avocet LNG. It believes that permitting would be easier for this expansion because of the work previously done for MARAD's Delfin LNG approval.
The company is also a partner in the Haisla LNG project, a small-scale FLNG project with the Haisla Nation in British Columbia.
UK Launches Maritime Strategy with Emission Pricing and Fuel Regulations
UK outlined the next phase of its efforts to drive maritime decarbonization (file photo)
The UK’s Maritime Minister, Mike Kane, outlined a new detailed plan for the next stages of the efforts toward maritime decarbonization. While the policy presented to the House of Commons in Parliament builds off the efforts of the International Maritime Organization, it also launches a focus on smaller vessels and targeted subsectors which it says must also participate to reach the goals.
The policy highlights that the UK domestic maritime sector produced around eight million tonnes of CO2 equivalents, on a full lifecycle basis, in 2019. The government has already launched a sweeping Plan for Change and now it looks to bring more parts of the maritime sector in line with the broader policies. Following the IMO’s lead, the UK is setting its goal for the domestic maritime sector aiming for zero fuel lifecycle GHG emissions by 2050. The interim steps are at least a 30 percent reduction by 2030 and an 80 percent reduction by 2040, relative to 2008 levels.
The elements of the strategy call for expanding the UK’s Emission Trading Scheme to include domestic UK maritime GHG emissions starting in 2026. At the same time, the UK says it will advocate at the IMO for the introduction in 2027 of global emission pricing. As part of this, the government says subject to further consultation next year, it will introduce domestic fuel regulations to drive the update of zero and net-zero GHG emission fuels and energy sources. It will also consider further actions at the port vessel to reduce at berth emissions.
The UK also looks to expand its policies to smaller vessels, i.e. sub-400 gross tons. It points out that it will be difficult for some sectors such as fishing vessels while others such as offshore wind support vessels could lead the sector. The government is issuing a call for evidence to begin this policy development.
The government will also launch a further exploration of the efforts at the port level. It will look at whether ports are planning decarbonization and the strategies for wider environmental considerations.
While recognizing that the efforts will be challenging for the sector, the government also cites opportunities for investment and creating new economic opportunities. They note that conservative estimates show that decarbonization of the UK maritime sector could support £130 to £180 million (US$168 to $233 million) of gross value added and around 1,400 to 2,100 jobs in the UK on average each year to 2050.
The UK Chamber of Shipping hailed the release of the new strategy saying it welcomed the Government’s publication of the Maritime Decarbonization Strategy, as a much-needed successor to the 2019 Clean Maritime Plan.
“The Government’s strategy must now be matched by delivering the regulatory framework, technology and infrastructure, including a shore power revolution, required to support the green transition for UK maritime, bringing benefits to maritime communities and the UK economy,” said UK Chamber CEO Rhett Hatcher. “We look forward to working collaboratively alongside government to progress this important agenda and reach our shared goals of a cleaner, more resilient maritime sector in the UK.”
Op-Ed: FuelEU Maritime Has Teeth, But is the Industry Equipped to Meet It?
The introduction of FuelEU Maritime (FEUM) in January 2025 represents one of the most comprehensive pieces of regulation designed to directly mitigate the carbon intensity of maritime operations. Working in tandem with the EU’s existing ETS regulation, FEUM comes with significant penalties for non-compliance and has the ability to make a tangible impact on the maritime industry’s carbon emissions while incentivizing the acceleration in low-carbon alternative fuel development.
As of January 2025, vessels are required to decrease the average greenhouse gas intensity of their fuel use by 2% relative to the industry average for vessels above 5,000 GT. This requirement will continue to increase gradually over the coming years to reach an 80% decrease by 2050.
The regulation also imposes detailed reporting obligations, which require companies to monitor and report the lifecycle GHG intensity of their fuel mix. This data must be verified by an accredited third party and submitted to the FEUM database, creating a further layer of administrative complexity to ensure compliance.
Ultimately, the goal of FEUM is to promote the increased use of low-carbon alternative fuels as a means of drastically curtailing the industry’s carbon emissions in order to achieve the IMO’s GHG reduction strategy. However, the industry is still faced with significant challenges when it comes to establishing alternative fuel viability at scale. Biofuels currently lack the required feedstocks needed to promote development, fuel technologies such as methanol and ammonia bring with them a significant risk profile due to their volatile composition, and the increase in e-fuel development is hampered by the lack of onshore infrastructure to support the necessary supply of green electricity. Furthermore, the CAPEX implications, not just of the fuels themselves, but in committing to retrofit and newbuild development to future-proof the global fleet, represents a significant barrier.
Despite these challenges, Bureau Veritas (BV) remains steadfast in its efforts to support the safe development and integration of alternative fuels into maritime operations. With longstanding expertise in supporting the development of viable alternative fuels, particularly within Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) bunkering vessels, BV has been developing rules and guidelines for LNG bunkering and has awarded AiPs of ship designs dedicated to ship-to-ship bunkering since 2012. To enhance safety, BV introduced the Rule for LNG Bunkering Ships, which focused on a transfer system to prevent leaks and boil-off gas handling systems for ships that aren’t sailing continuously but waiting for fuel delivery. Today, BV covers all units in the LNG segment, having classified around 35% of the world’s bunkering ships in service and 50% of the orderbook to date.
Whilst LNG remains an important part of the current energy landscape, the development of greener alternatives – such as ammonia, methanol, and green hydrogen – are vital to establishing a robust, multifuel environment. Using our experience in LNG, BV has developed Rules (NR671) and notations to support the adoption of ammonia as a fuel onboard, whilst having recently announced that it would be classifying the first of four newbuild dual-fuel methanol chemical IMO II medium-range (MR) tankers, built at Guangzhou Shipyard International for owner Socatra and its joint-venture partner Hafnia.
However, despite the significant emissions reductions that can be unlocked by the delivery of viable and scalable alternative fuel options, if shipping is to achieve its interim emissions targets in 2030 and 2040, all energy efficiency and wider green technologies must be engaged in order to decarbonize the global fleet. FEUM has adopted a technology-agnostic approach to achieving compliance that provides the flexibility for shipowners and operators to engage with a variety of green solutions that support emissions reductions. These solutions focus particularly on fuel cells, onboard electrical energy storage, as well as onboard power generation from wind and solar energy.
When considering the use of wind propulsion systems (WPS), FEUM represents the only emissions regulation to include a specific reward mechanism to promote the use of WPS. The Wind Reward Factor (WRF) offers up to a 5% reduction on the GHG calculation of energy used onboard for those vessels where wind assisted propulsion accounts for 15% or more of the propulsive power used onboard.
As of February 2025, more than 125 wind propulsion systems have been installed on over 57 ships, in addition to 17 ships that are already prepared for potential installation of wind propulsion systems. In fact, a recent study suggested that over 1,600 ships will be ordered by 2030, and by 2050, it is estimated that 30% of the entire global fleet will have engaged with wind propulsion technology. These statistics make clear that, while the industry grapples to develop alternative low-carbon fuel viability, wind propulsion systems provide a proven and readily available solution that can make a significant impact on owners' and operators' compliance efforts.
Furthermore, BV’s own modeling has confirmed the potential cumulative impact that operational and technical efficiency measures will make to ensuring shipping stays within its “GHG budget” to 2050. BV’s simulations, outlined in its decarbonization trajectories technical paper, show that without action to reduce speed or waiting time while ocean transportation volumes grow moderately to reach a 50% increase by 2050, GHG emissions would be 92% higher in 2050, with 44% more emissions over the period from a GHG budget perspective, than if these levers had been actioned.
As we edge closer to the IMO’s 2030 checkpoint, which will require the industry to evidence a GHG emissions reduction of at least 20 – and striving for 30% – the pressure on the industry to make meaningful impacts on their carbon emissions continues to increase. The introduction of new regional regulation is having a positive impact on reducing shipping’s carbon emissions. However, such regulation will always be subject to dynamic carbon credit prices, a volatile political landscape, and the emergence of compliance incentives and mechanisms that may inhibit or support their efficacy.
Meanwhile, the industry is waiting for the upcoming IMO MEPC83 meeting in April, where mid-term measures, including a potential codified global carbon levy, are expected to be announced. If the levy introduced is sufficiently robust, such a measure holds great promise for the next phase in the industry’s decarbonization efforts. If effective, a global carbon levy could provide a level of financial certainty to incentivize further investment in low-carbon fuel production, narrow the price gap between fossil and alternative fuels, and generate the revenue required to achieve sector-wide low-carbon fuel viability.
Suba Sivandran is Director of Strategy, M&A and Advanced Services at BV.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.
ALT.FUEL
HMM Joins Pioneers with its First Methanol-Fueled Containership
HMM Green is entering service as HMM's first methanol-fueled containership (HMM)
The ranks of container shipping companies employing methanol-fueled vessels continue to grow with HMM becoming the latest among the early adopters of the fuel. DNV calculates there are just 26 methanol-fueled containerships in service currently with orders for 200 more vessels having been placed. By comparison, there are 166 containerships fueled by LNG currently in service.
HMM ordered its first methanol vessels in February 2023 with seven to be built by HD Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries and two additional vessels at HJ Shipbuilding & Construction. The deliveries are coming this year as part of the company’s expansion and environmental plans.
The first ship, named HMM Green was delivered and is due to arrive in Busan on March 26. The vessels are 100,000 dwt with a capacity of 9,000 TEU. Their length is 274 meters (899 feet), which HMM highlights as a versatile class of ships. To maximize their ability to dock in ports around the world the company highlights a range of environmental technologies that were incorporated into the design. In addition to the methanol-fueled propulsion system, the vessel is equipped for shore power and has a ballast water treatment system.
HMM reports the new vessel will bunker with bio-methanol at the port of Shanghai. The bio-methanol is derived from waste resources. The company reports it can reduce carbon emissions by up to 65 percent, eliminate sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions, and cut nitrogen oxide (Nox) emissions by up to 80 percent compared to conventional bunker fuel.
The new vessel will be deployed on HMM’s independently operated route between Far East Asia, India, and the Mediterranean. It is part of a drive by the company which expects to reach the 1 million TEU capacity mark later this year. HMM is currently the eighth largest container carrier with a capacity of approximately 922,000 TEU.
Mitsui OSK Partners with CMB.Tech for First Ammonia-Fueled Vessels
MOL is partnering with CMB.Tech for the first ammonia-fueled large dry bulk carriers (CMB.TECH)
Japan’s Mitsui O.S.K. Lines is moving forward to become one of the first of the major carriers to incorporate ammonia-fueled vessels into its fleet. MOL is joining with CMB.Tech which launched a project in 2023 to build the first ammonia-fueled large dry bulker carriers and will also expand ammonia as a fuel to its chemical tanker segment.
MOL and CMB.Tech have agreed to joint ownership of three ammonia-fitted 210,000 dwt Newcastle bulk carriers. The vessels have already been ordered at Qingdao Beihai Shipyard due for delivery in 2026 and 2027. CMB.Tech launched the project in 2023 working with WinGD to develop a 72-bore ammonia-fueled engine. After nine months of work, they announced good progress as CSSC Qingdao-Beihai Shipbuilding and CSSC Engine Company joined the project.
The vessels which were being developed for CMB’s Bocimar and were anticipated to be the first large ammonia-fueled vessels in the commercial industry. Under the terms of the new agreement, CMB.Tech and MOL will jointly own the vessels. The Japanese company will charter the three vessels each for 12 years.
The companies are expanding ammonia-fueled installations reporting a new order with China Merchants Jinling Shipyard (Yangzhou) for a total of six chemical tankers. Two of the vessels will be ammonia-fitted on delivery and the other four will be built ammonia-ready. CMB.Tech will own the vessels, which are due for delivery in 2028 and 2029, and charter the two ammonia vessels to MOL Chemical Tankers for 10 years. The Japanese company will have 7-year charters on the ammonia-ready vessels.
The MOL Group reports it intends to adopt ammonia and integrate it into the corporate environmental vision initiative. MOL’s goal is to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.
WinGD has reported that it is making solid progress in the testing of its first ammonia-fueled engines. The company has said the first engines could be ready for delivery this year.
While there is strong interest in ammonia due to its ability to eliminate carbon emissions, the shipping industry has been waiting for progress with the engines. DNV calculates that there are 31 vessels on order for delivery by 2027 that would be built for ammonia, but so far only three vessels have been retrofitted for ammonia operations. Australia’s Fortescue completed certification in Singapore for an offshore vessel while Japan’s NYK Group converted its LNG-fueled tugboat to operate with ammonia.
Alexander Saverys, CEO of CMB.Tech has been a strong proponent of ammonia as one of the tools to decarbonize shipping. He noted with these orders, CMB.Tech has increased its contract backlog by $921 million to a total of $2.94 billion. He says it demonstrates the progress on their vision of fleet rejuvenation, decarbonization, and diversification.
Tuesday, March 25, 2025
CERAWeek, the ‘Superbowl of Energy’ – A Spectacle of Billionaire Power to Advance Fossil Fuels
Climate activists flocked to Houston to challenge the energy conference and its reckless promotion of fossil fuels.
A group of climate justice activists protesting CERAWeek is arrested by the Houston Police Department. Credit: Lauren Parker.
Last week, thousands of people gathered in Houston, Texas for CERAWeek 2025, perhaps the most significant annual meet-up of the network of oil executives, investors, consultants, government officials, and more, that make up and support the fossil fuel industry.
Inside the gathering, oil, finance, and tech executives joined a slew of panels discussing a range of energy industry topics. Top Trump officials spoke, including US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and US Interior secretary Doug Burgum. According to Guardian climate reporter Dharna Noor, “Wright said global warming was merely a needed “side-effect” of modernization, while Burgum called to “take our natural resources and turn them into natural assets.”
Meanwhile, outside CERAWeek, hundreds of climate activists protested the conference’s display of billionaire power and celebration of fossil fuels, with several activists arrested.
What is CERAWeek, anyways? Who or what is the power behind CERAWeek? What functions does CERAWeek perform for the fossil fuel industry power structure? Who were some of the key billionaires at CERAWeek? This primer will address these questions.
What is CERAWeek?
CERAWeek is a massive, transnational gathering of powerful people tied to the energy industry, including top fossil fuel executives, big financial investors, and high-level government officials and regulators.
The Houston Chronicle — newspaper of the fossil fuel capital of the US, where CERAWeek is held — has labelled the event the “Super Bowl of energy,” awash with “energy insiders.” Climate activist Bill McKibben has referred to it as “the hydrocarbon world’s biggest festival, a Davos for carbon.”
CERAWeek performs several functions for the energy industry. These include serving as a space to discuss and debate industry trends; engage in networking and dealmaking; hold high-level conversations between executives, investors and regulators; and broadly, to promote and legitimize the industry with a high-profile event.
Thousands of participants attend CERAWeek. In 2023, around 7,200 people from 90 countries flocked to the event. It claims to be rated among the top five “corporate leader conferences” worldwide.
Leaders from the highest heights of politics and industry attend CERAWeek. Past speakers have included Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Justin Trudeau, Narendra Modi, Henry Kissinger to Bill Gates.
This year, new Trump Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum were speakers, along with CEOs or other top executives of fossil fuel companies that span the gamut of the industry, from Big Oil giants to LNG export companies, oil pipeline corporations to utilities. Some of these include ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Oxy, BP, Cheniere, Pioneer, Enbridge, NRG, EQT, Baker Hughes, Hunt Energy, Williams Companies, Hess, NextEra, National Grid, and Freeport LNG — just to name a few.
Harold Hamm of Continental Resources — maybe the industry’s closest ally to Donald Trump — was a speaker. Top leaders from industry groups like American Petroleum Institute, American Gas Association and Edison International attended.
Critically, major Wall Street investors and tech giants also attended CERAWeek. These include asset managers like BlackRock, private equity firms like Carlyle, Apollo, and Blackstone, and tech corporations like Amazon, Microsoft and Alphabet (the parent company of Google).
Nor is CERAWeek a solely U.S. affair. Government and corporate representatives from countries all over the world — Saudi Arabia to Canada, Turkey to Nigeria, South Korea to Kuwait — attended as well.
Who Rules CERAWeek?
While CERAWeek is filled with industry representatives, it’s dominated by major corporate players. Different “Partners” sponsor the conference, presumably through hefty fees, and the biggest sponsors gain the most access and power in shaping the event’s tone and content.
For example, according to the sponsorship brochure from the 2024 CERAWeek conference, the highest level of sponsorship, which is limited to just a few corporations and firms, is “Foundational.”
These sponsors “benefit from the highest levels of access, visibility, and executive support” and “play a leadership role within the CERAWeek community and are provided premier engagement and contribution.” Foundational Partners also “may collaborate with CERAWeek to develop a customized Special Program or community aligned with specific objectives.”
This year’s Foundational Partners were Chevron, Amazon, and BlackRock, as well as professional services firm Marsh McLennan and the coal company Xcoal.
The next level of Partners are “Strategic,” which “supports active engagement and access across a wide range of the CERAWeek community.” Among other things, Strategic Partners’ “objectives are supported by the CERAWeek Steering Committee,” and these Partners “receive priority consideration to contribute content and access to CERAWeek Private Communities.
Strategic Partners for CERAWeek 2025 included ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, EQT, Freeport LNG, NextEra, Carlyle Group, Microsoft, and dozens more.
Notably, a major power player behind CERAWeek is Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer-prize winning author who helped found the conference over four decades ago and serves as chairman of CERAWeek and Vice Chairman of S&P Global, the well-known financial services company that runs CERAWeek (read more on Yergin below).
The Fossil Fuel Industry, the Houston Power Elite & the Houston Police Foundation
The power elite of Houston is deeply intertwined with the fossil fuel industry. Energy companies dominate the board of the city’s main chamber of commerce, the Greater Houston Partnership, making up around a quarter of its membership. Houston is one of the fossil fuel corporate headquarters of the world, home to key global and regional offices of many numerous companies including ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, Occidental, and many others.
The fossil fuel industry also has a close relationship with the Houston Police Department through the Houston Police Foundation, a non-profit that channels corporate donations to city police. Oil billionaires like Jeffery Hildebrand sit on the Houston Police Foundation board, and the foundation helps fund police programs, including the Mounted Patrol that aided attacks on climate activists during CERAWeek.
The Houston Police Department used horses to try to disperse activists peacefully protesting CERAWeek, injuring and nearly trampling people in the process. Several fossil fuel corporations sponsor the Houston Police Department’s Mounted Patrol horses through the Adopt-A-Horse program. Credit: Luigi Morris.
In fact, oil companies like Chevron, Shell and Valero sponsor individual Mounted Patrol horses. (For more on police foundations and their ties to the fossil fuel industry, check out our 2020 story and our 2021 report coauthored with Color of Change).
CERAWeek and the Fossil Fuel Industry Power Structure
CERAWeek performs several roles within the fossil fuel industry and wider energy power structure.
Legitimizing the Fossil Fuel Industry
While CERAWeek ultimately functions as a show of force for the fossil fuel industry and a space for it to hash things out, it has a veneer of legitimizing wonkiness and expertise.
CERAWeek was founded by Daniel Yergin in the early 1980s, a decorated author who has carved out a space as a benign interlocutor between the fossil fuel industry and civil society — an author with intellectual bona fides who has deep and direct personal ties to the corporate energy world.
Yergin has numerous influential ties to academic institutions, like MIT and Columbia University, and government-aligned think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution. He has authored several well-known books about the fossil fuel industry — most notably his award-winning The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power — while also serving on advisory boards and boards of directors of key industry groups and think tanks worldwide.
All told, the spectacle of a massive, public-facing conference, well covered by the media, celebrating and discussing the energy industry and its fossil fuel giants, all given a wonkish gloss by analysts, academics and consultants, provides cover for an industry whose core operations are widely known to be driving climate chaos.
Networking, Schmoozing, Dealmaking
Gatherings like CERAWeek are critical sites for industry networking. CERAWeeks says it convenes “over 450 C-Suite executives, 80 ministers and top officials, and 325 media representatives.”
Participants chat, schmooze and socialize behind closed doors or at any number of extended Happy Hours. This helps build and cultivate relationships and allows for conversations that lead to new contracts, deals, positions, and so on.
At CERAWeek, this networking is all the more important because many high-level representatives of government and international companies are attending. The energy priorities that are hashed out through these conversations — the formal panels, and also the backroom discussion — can have deep implications for global energy policy and geopolitics (one of the event’s themes).
Taking Stock of Industry Trends and Fractions
CERAWeek’s huge numbers and ambitious agenda also present a moment for taking stock of the energy industry’s present and its future. Conference themes explore the gamut of areas within the corporate energy world. This year’s themes included Policy and Regulation, Oil and Gas, Power, Grid and Electrification, Trade and Supply Chains, Business Strategies, Minerals and Mining, Technology and Innovation, and more.
Different fractions of the energy industry, some aspiring, can also use CERAWeek to make their case. “AI and Digital,” for example, is a conference theme this year.
The rise of data centers needed to power AI has strengthened the nexus between the fossil fuel industry, Big Tech, and financial investors, at the expense of a green energy transition.
The event is also filled with the world’s top private equity firms and asset managers, who remain not only wedded to fossil fuels but retreated from previous net zero commitments – indeed, Finance (“The Capital Transition”) was a theme of CERAWeek this year.
Greenwashing
CERAWeek is also a performance in greenwashing. The fossil fuel industry today is simultaneously doubling down on its core business of oil and gas extraction and production while also giving lip service to concerns over carbon emissions and seeking to capture and profit from false solutions like carbon capture and hydrogen.
CERAWeek allows the fossil fuel industry to do both these things. The conference is dominated by fossil fuel giants who are currently racing to drill and burn more oil and gas, but also to gobble up subsidies and produce hydrogenplants — falsely promoting hydrogen as a climate “solution.”
Indeed, CERAWeek 2025 included themes like “Managing Emissions,” “Climate and Sustainability,” and “Hydrogen and Low-Carbon Fuels.” But as Kate Aronoff reported on a previous CERAWeek: “There’s some people involved with copper and lithium and various things, but the main focus is oil and gas, and with a pretty specific focus within oil and gas on some of the bigger companies.”
CERAWeek’s Billionaires
Among the most powerful people at CERAWeek are a slew of oil billionaires, tech titans, and fossil fuel financiers who, whether they show up in person, stand to benefit from the discussions and deal-making that occur at the gathering. Among these are:
Harold Hamm, worth $18.5 billion, who is the founder, chairman and CEO of Continental Resources, a top ten U.S. independent oil producer. Hamm, who mobilized industry support for Trump’s reelection, may be the key liaison between the fossil fuel industry and the Trump administration. Hamm celebrated Trump’s inauguration by hosting “an exclusive fossil fuel industry celebration on Inauguration Day” whose guests included Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, according to the New York Times. Hamm was a speaker at CERAWeek 2025.
Larry Fink, worth $1.2 billion, who is the founder, chairman, and CEO of BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager and a top “Foundational Partner” of CERAWeek 2025. BlackRock is a top shareholder of nearly every publicly-traded fossil fuel company, and Fink may be the most influential CEO on Wall Street. BlackRock was a top sponsor of CERAWeek and, as Dharna Noor of the Guardian reported, Fink wore a silicone bracelet at the gathering that read “make energy great again” — a far cry from his lip service to climate change just a few years ago. Fink was also a speaker at CERAWeek.
David Rubenstein, worth $3.8 billion, who is a cofounder and co-executive chairman of private equity giant Carlyle Group, a “Strategic Partner” sponsor of CERAWeek which has numerous fossil fuel holdings. Even when it sold off a hefty portfolio of gas-fired power plants in late 2024, the Private Equity Stakeholder Project said that Carlyle was “perpetuating the climate crisis” by offloading them “rather than responsibly transitioning the assets to clean energy generation or retiring and remediating the damage caused by the assets.”
Jeff Bezos, the founder and executive chairman of Amazon worth $214 billion, whose Amazon Web Services was a top “Foundational Partner” of CERAWeek. Amazon and other tech companies that oversee cloud infrastructure stand to profit from the technification of everything and especially the AI boom. As journalist Kate Aronoff writes: “Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta all control cloud computing infrastructure that’s poised to benefit from the energy-intensive vision of AI development these developers are pushing.”
Hundreds of Climate Activists Protest CERAWeek
Recognizing the opportunity to disrupt mainstream messaging about CERAWeek, and to confront the fossil fuel industry and lift up the stories of frontline communities fighting fossil fuel infrastructure, dozens of climate justice groups participated in coordinated days of actions protesting CERAWeek. Hundreds of elders, young people, and residents of rural areas and cities, marched to demand an end to fossil fuels and accountability of wealthy polluters.
Hundreds of climate activists marched in downtown Houston to protest CERAWeek. Credit: Lauren Parker.
Activists specifically focused on the build out of methane gas (also known by euphemism “liquified natural gas”) export terminals along the Gulf South. These export terminals rely on transporting fracked gas via pipelines and have notoriously imperiled local communities due to toxic air releases, overdrawing water resources, and destroying precious marine habitats. In June of 2022, the Freeport LNG terminal actually exploded, sending a 450-foot ball of fire and pollutants into the air, shaking the houses of nearby residents.
Freeport LNG’s CEO, billionaire Michael Smith, was a featured speaker at CERAWeek, stating that methane gas was “necessary”, echoing other speakers’ sentiments which downplayed the urgent need for renewable energy sources.
At the culmination of the march, eight frontline and Indigenous activists and allies sat in the intersection in front of the CERAWeek conference. The Houston Police Department violently attacked these activists with Mounted Patrol horses before conducting arrests.
As noted above, major oil and gas corporations sponsor these horses, underscoring the tight and varied relationships between policing and the energy industry to suppress struggles against fossil fuels.
CERAWeek, an extravagant display of billionaire power and the convergence of the fossil fuel industry, government, tech and finance, stood in stark contrast to those in the march – everyday people fighting for clean water and air in their hometowns, sovereignty for Indigenous communities, an end to extractive energy systems, and a liveable future for generations to come.
The introduction of FuelEU Maritime (FEUM) in January 2025 represents one of the most comprehensive pieces of regulation designed to directly mitigate the carbon intensity of maritime operations. Working in tandem with the EU’s existing ETS regulation, FEUM comes with significant penalties for non-compliance and has the ability to make a tangible impact on the maritime industry’s carbon emissions while incentivizing the acceleration in low-carbon alternative fuel development.
