Recently, leading maritime companies such as Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL) and Samsung Heavy Industries have successively unveiled new concept designs for liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers, drawing significant industry attention. However, Pierre Aury, a senior maritime industry journalist, commentator, and consultant, has raised principled objections to this. Records indicate that Aury is known for his sharp criticism of the shipping industry’s green transformation and his deep skepticism about its technical feasibility.
Pierre Aury published an article in Singapore shipping media outlet Splash247, expressing particular interest in the new LNG carrier concept design recently unveiled by MOL and Samsung Heavy Industries.
The relevant designs are: two 174,000 cubic meter new membrane LNG carrier concept designs jointly developed by MOL, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, and Samsung Heavy Industries, each equipped with four rigid wing sail wind assist systems; and Samsung Heavy Industries’ concept design for the world’s first 174,000 cubic meter LNG carrier powered by a small modular molten salt reactor (MSR), which has been jointly granted Approval in Principle (AiP) by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and the Liberian flag state.
Pierre Aury cites an example in his article: at an average density of 0.6, 174,000 cubic meters of LNG equates to approximately 105,000 metric tons. Regardless of the LNG’s final application—whether for power generation, heating, cooking, or other uses—the vast majority of the methane will ultimately be burned. Each ton of methane burned releases 2.75 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Therefore, the combustion of 105,000 tons of LNG will generate nearly 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Additionally, emissions from liquefaction, regasification, and transportation must be accounted for, along with emissions known as “methane slip”—that is, emissions resulting from methane flowing through the main engine without being fully combusted.
Methane itself is a potent greenhouse gas. The main engine’s daily fuel consumption (measured in heavy fuel oil equivalent) ranges between 50 and 90 tons, depending on the technology type (a combination of two-stroke low-speed engines and four-stroke medium-speed engines paired with generators and electric motors).
Based on an average daily consumption of 70 tons for a 30-day round-trip voyage, a 174,000 cubic meter LNG carrier consumes 2,100 tons of heavy oil equivalent throughout the entire journey and emits 6,300 tons of carbon dioxide (2,100×3=6,300, with 3 tons of carbon dioxide produced for every ton of heavy oil burned). These 6,300 tons of carbon dioxide account for approximately 2% of the 300,000 tons of emissions during the aforementioned combustion period.
Therefore, assuming the adoption of nuclear power, the LNG shipping industry could claim a reduction of 6,300 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per voyage—but this implies that upon arrival at its destination, the LNG will release up to 48 times (300,000/6,300) the amount of carbon dioxide emissions during its usage.
Current LNG carrier orders have reached 44% of the existing fleet size, while global natural gas demand is projected to grow by 20% by 2050. The resulting carbon emissions data is becoming staggering.
Pierre Aury also pointed out that if a fully loaded 174,000 cubic meter LNG carrier were to suffer a major accident, what would be the consequences? Would it form a giant block of ice? Trigger a violent explosion? Or both? To be on the safe side, perhaps we should add another nuclear reactor.
If LNG carriers were to adopt wind-assisted propulsion systems, all the aforementioned calculations—namely, the comparison between carbon dioxide emissions saved and additional emissions—would appear even more absurd. At best, fuel savings would only reach 30%, with some data even indicating savings as low as 17%.
At the end of his article, Pierre Aury pointed out: “When it comes to carbon dioxide emissions in the shipping industry, we seem to be ‘clear-headed’, but when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas, we become so ‘confused.’”