FuelEU + EU ETS compliance costs for CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and COSCO
-
This case study calculates and compares EU ETS and FuelEU compliance costs for three major shipping companies: CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and COSCO. From 2025 until 2050, these three companies will pay a total compliance cost of:
CMA CGM > $16.7 billion EU ETS and $37.0 billion FuelEU penalties
Hapag-Lloyd > $8.0 billion EU ETS and $17.0 billion FuelEU penalties
COSCO > $9.7 billion EU ETS and $21.9 billion FuelEU penalties
The normalized compliance costs per mT of fuel from 2025 until 20250 are almost $300 per mT for CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd, and $200 for COSCO. Of greatest impact is the amount of time spent sailing in EU waters. Normalized compliance costs over this period can rise to $1,000 per mT and beyond in case all voyages are inside EU waters.
The absolute compliance costs are in the hundreds of millions per year for each company. Until 2035, compliance costs are dominated by EU ETS. After that, costs are dominated by FuelEU Maritime. By 2050, compliance costs for FuelEU alone are in the order of 2 – 5 billion USD. CMA CGM has the highest absolute costs due to its highest fuel consumption and EU exposure.
-
The Fuel Cost Calculator compares the use of up to three different fuels on a normalized and absolute cost basis. It compares fuel costs, EU ETS costs, FuelEU penalty and pooling benefits if applied. This tool helps shipowners, operators, and fuel suppliers assess the economic impact of different fuel choices while considering regulatory developments, in particular FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS.
The tool allows for a scenario-based analysis, allowing you to explore predefined fuel price evolutions (Steady State, Fossil Future, Biofuels Better, and Renewable Rise) or define your own price trends. It also enables dynamic selection of a start and end year, so you can focus on specific time ranges to analyse fuel cost evolution. A report of your analysis can be printed and shared to showcase different options all the way up to C-level for strategic decision-making purposes. In short, you can use the tool for …
✔ Operational Cost Forecast – Project fuel costs over time, incorporating EU ETS and FuelEU penalties or pooling benefits.
✔ Regulatory Compliance Assessment – Determine the cost implications of EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime penalties and identify cost-saving strategies.
✔ Investment Case Report – Create a structured analysis to present fuel cost scenarios and regulatory impacts to decision-makers.
✔ Feasibility Study – Assess the financial and regulatory impact of switching to alternative fuels before making investment decisions.
✔ Fuel Cost Benchmarking – Compare fuels on an energy-equivalent basis to understand which is most cost-effective for specific routes or operations.
Premium only
Members only
Premium tools and expert support at your fingertips
Don’t want to sign up? Check pay-per-use options
References
CMA CGM - CSR Report 2023
Hapag-Lloyd - Sustainability Report 2023
COSCO - Sustainability Report 2022
Hyperlinks for members only
You might also like
This case study determines the costs of compliance for a 3,000 TEU Panamax containership with respect to FuelEU and EU ETS. Estimated annual compliance costs for business as usual range from $2.5M in 2025 to $23M in 2050. Two different pathways are evaluated to determine mitigation options and OPEX costs: shore power and wind-assisted propulsion. Savings for shore power are approx. $400k per year in 2025, savings for wind-assisted propulsion are approx. $600k in 2025.
This case study calculates and compares EU ETS and FuelEU compliance costs for three major shipping companies: CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and COSCO. From 2025 until 2050, these three companies will pay a total compliance cost of $54B (CMA CGM), $25B (Hapag-Lloyd) and $32B (COSCO).
This case study calculates and compares the compliance costs with regards to EU ETS and FuelEU for VLSFO, bio-methanol and e-ammonia. Results show that the averaged compliance costs for VLSFO between 2025 and 2050 are $966 per mT.
Metasorbex™ is a startup in the chemical industry that offers technology to produce carbon-neutral and cost-effective methanol. Existing feedstocks or even waste streams from hydrogen industry can be used. Current cost for one metric ton of methanol in US is $400 to $500. Metasorbex’s technology could provide not only a carbon-neutral, but cheaper form of methanol. Maritime industry - in particular in EU - is most interesting due to incentives and penalties on CO2.
This is a case study of a trailing hopper suction dredger with 14MW installed power - the ‘Happy Hopper’ - which is converted to methanol combustion. This case study is inspired by the amazing work done by Van Oord. With the given assumptions on emission factors for methanol, 93% CO2 reduction is achieved. CAPEX for a methanol refit of this size is approximately €6M+, of which roughly €5M is intended for engine refit only. OPEX will be greatly increased unless methanol price is below €500 per mT.
This is a case study on how to decarbonize a fishing trawler - the Jacobus Maria - using shore power, battery hybrid EES and biofuels. 20% CO2 reduction is achieved, half of which stems from the use of biofuels (HVO). The hybrid battery pack is economically not feasible with the assumptions used and the operational profile. The Jacobus Maria has 1 MW installed engine capacity. Total cost would be at least €1M. 10% CO2 reduction can be achieved with approx. €50k.
Neste Corporation calls its own HVO product “Neste Renewable Diesel”. The common acronym “HVO” comes from the terms “Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil”. It meets the requirements of EN 15940 for paraffinic diesel fuels and is allowed as a blending component in EN 590 B7 diesel fuel. It is a high quality fuel that can be used to enhance the properties of the final diesel blend. No modifications to vehicles required and it has the same torque and maximum power as with fossil diesel fuel in modern engines.
This video showcases a fuel switchover of an engine from regular diesel fuel to methanol by Arenared.
This blog is a state of the use of methanol as marine fuel as “quick” reference for shipowners. Key points include costs for retrofitting the ship and engine, range between € 250-€650 per kW, elaboration on IGF code for low flashpoint fuels and technical considerations for conversion and working with methanol. Availability for methanol is good, but bunkering for large vessels mostly non-existent. Methanol price per kilogram is historically lower than regular MGO.
Learn about methanol, the simplest alcohol in the universe which has the highest hydrogen to carbon ratio of any liquid fuel under ambient atmospheric conditions. It can reduce SOx emission by 99%, NOx by 60% and PM by 95%.
Reducing carbon emissions in the shipping sector can be hard and expensive. Carbon insetting is a way to compensate for emissions that you are unable to mitigate within your normal operations - or are too costly to mitigate - but can be mitigated at other places in your fleet or the sector. Carbon insetting is simple, scalable and perhaps most importantly: almost all vessels can do it without the need for retrofitting or upfront investment costs.
Over 20% of all Dutch emissions are coming from the Port of Rotterdam, of which the production of grey hydrogen from fossil feedstock is one of the main culprits. This article explores what is needed to build a green hydrogen refinery. It provides an overview of the existing fossil infrastructure and fuel consumption, which technologies are required to transform, how much it would cost and who are actually working on it.
This thesis by J.M. Rozendaal at van Oord focuses on the technical, environmental and economic impact of a methanol hybrid power plant design for new-build offshore working vessels. Its conclusion is that a methanol solution has a CO2 reduction potential up to 99% and a CO2 price of 78 euro per ton CO2 reduction.
Following a historic vote in parliament on December 15th 2020, the Norwegian Government announced its funding decision for the ‘Northern Lights’ CO2 transport and storage project. The project aims to create a carbon capture and storage hub in Norway, open to third parties. It will be the first ever cross-border, open-source CO2 transport and storage infrastructure network and offers European industrial emitters the opportunity to store their CO2 safely and permanently underground.
BP and Ørsted have partnered to develop a zero-carbon hydrogen at BP’s Lingen Refinery in north-west Germany, BP's first full-scale project in a sector that is expected to grow rapidly. The 50 MW electrolyser project is expected to produce 1 ton of hydrogen per hour - almost 9,000 tonnes a year - starting in 2024. The project could be expanded to up to 500 MW at a later stage to replace all of Lingen’s fossil fuel-based hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a clean-burning molecule, meaning that it can help to decarbonize a range of sectors that have proved hard to clean up in the past. But today, most hydrogen is produced from CO2-emitting fossil fuels. Hydrogen produced from renewable electricity, known as green hydrogen, could be the solution to cutting our carbon footprint. But first, it must overcome a number of challenges.
Carbon capture and storage is often brought up as a solution to climate change, but do we really need it, how much of an impact could it really make, and is it in fact just an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels, letting heavy polluting industries off the hook? It's time to find out the truth.
People think we need energy. Truth is, we do not. We need heating, lighting and transportation. At the right place, on the right time. Generating energy is not the issue, the trick is how to transform it into useful energy and store it. So how can we combine the cheapest form of energy generation with energy storage? What is the best place to generate gigantic, ridiculous amounts of energy? As in tenths of gigawatts, the size of small countries? In the desert with solar energy? Think again.
Easier than you might think. Seaport Groningen wants to create ‘Chemport Europe’, providing chemicals and fuels to the entire industry in the North of the Netherlands based on agricultural waste.
This case study analyzes 10 marine fuels using an HFO-equivalent model to determine their full lifecycle costs, including fuel prices and regulatory compliance costs, from 2025 to 2050. The results highlight a critical tipping point in 2040, driven by the FuelEU Maritime regulation increasing carbon intensity reduction targets sharply from 14.5% to 31%. This blog provides shipowners with guidance on how to navigate these evolving cost scenarios and maintain competitiveness to ensure future-proof investments.