SGMF's Three-Fuel Lifecycle Study Forces a Harder Question on Fuel Procurement
What changed
The Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel has completed well-to-wake lifecycle assessments covering LNG, ammonia and methanol, giving the industry its first coherent three-fuel benchmark set from a single technical body. The methanol study, published this year, finishes a portfolio that began with LNG and ammonia. Read together, the three assessments make one point unavoidable: the fuel name on a bunker delivery note tells a technical manager almost nothing about actual emissions performance.
Ammonia showed well-to-wake reductions of up to 61% against conventional oil fuels, but only under specific low-carbon hydrogen production routes. Fossil LNG delivered 11% to 25% reductions against MGO, with methane slip consuming up to 12% of total well-to-wake emissions in some engine types.Methanol's range is the widest of all three: fossil-derived methanol can perform worse than conventional oil fuels on a lifecycle basis, while bio- or e-methanol can deliver very large reductions. The molecule is identical in each case. The production pathway is not.
Why this matters for procurement now
FuelEU Maritime calculates compliance against well-to-wake greenhouse gas intensity, not tank-to-wake combustion output. For vessels already inside scope, and for larger yachts approaching relevant tonnage or engaged in commercial charter, a bunker contract specifying "methanol" or "LNG" without a documented production pathway is not evidence of compliance. It is an unverified assumption that could fail scrutiny at annual reporting or during class verification.
RED III's RFNBO criteria create the same exposure from a different angle. Renewable fuel of non-biological origin status depends on electricity sourcing, additionality rules and temporal correlation requirements for the hydrogen used in synthesis. A charter operator citing "green methanol" in ESG materials without an ISCC or equivalent chain-of-custody certificate tracing the hydrogen source is making a claim that cannot survive an owner's due diligence review, let alone a regulatory audit.
What technical managers and operators should verify
Three checks now belong in every alternative fuel contract renewal. First, request the specific lifecycle pathway documentation behind any fuel supply, not a generic fuel-type label. Second, confirm certification scheme coverage, ISCC EU or an equivalent recognised standard, with chain-of-custody evidence extending to feedstock or electricity origin. Third, where LNG is involved, obtain engine-specific methane slip data rather than accepting fleet-average figures, since SGMF's own findings show this varies materially by technology.
Charter operators defending ESG commitments to family offices and corporate clients should treat SGMF's conclusion as an audit standard rather than a technical curiosity. Claudia Beumer's statement, that all three fuels have decarbonisation potential but that outcome depends on production pathway, is now the operative test for any fuel-related sustainability claim. What to monitor next: how FuelEU Maritime enforcement bodies and class societies begin requesting pathway-level evidence in practice, and whether the Mediterranean bunker supply chain develops verifiable e-methanol and bio-LNG volumes at commercially relevant scale.
