Low-GHG fuel prices and availability could substantially alter the economics of tanker fleet renewal, according to a DNV case study reported by Hellenic Shipping News. The analysis finds that conventional ships fitted with scrubbers offer lower costs under a slow energy transition, while LNG dual-fuel replacements perform better on cost and risk if the transition accelerates.
The study, included in DNV’s Maritime Forecast to 2050, models five very large crude carriers operating in the spot market with limited EU/EEA exposure. All initially use conventional fuels, have scrubbers and lack shore power capability. Two were built in 2010, one in 2015 and two in 2020. Replacement begins in 2030, with each vessel retired at 20 years old.
Two investment strategies are compared over 2026–2050. The first retains conventional-fuel newbuilds with open-loop scrubbers, using high-sulphur heavy fuel oil alongside basic operational efficiency measures. The second introduces LNG dual-fuel newbuilds equipped with shaft generators and shore power. It also includes efficiency retrofits in 2026 for the three newest existing vessels, covering energy-saving devices, seawater-pump drives and low-friction hull coatings.
Hellenic Shipping News reports that both strategies begin at an average break-even rate of roughly US$52,000 per vessel per day in 2026. Under the slow-transition scenario, that rises to about US$61,000 by 2049 for the conventional fleet and US$67,000 for the LNG strategy, reflecting the latter’s higher newbuild costs. Under rapid transition, the conventional option reaches around US$167,000, driven by compliance penalties and costly low-GHG diesel. The LNG option reaches about US$144,000, supported by lower fuel consumption and cheaper low-GHG methane.
The risk assessment identifies inadequate low-GHG diesel supply and local restrictions on open-loop scrubbers as significant exposures for the conventional strategy under rapid transition. DNV senior consultant and report lead author Øyvind Sekkesæter identifies compliance pooling, long-term fuel offtake agreements and contractual transfers of compliance liabilities to charterers as potential mitigations. The framework combines financial modelling with non-monetary risk assessments, allowing owners to weight scenarios according to their expectations and compare the resilience of different fleet strategies.