Dr Lindstad claims that methane emissions were 'incorrectly' presented and discussed in a report commissions by SEA/LNG and the Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel (SGMF).

Dr Lindstad analysed the report above and resulted to the fact that the use of unburned methane measurements gathered at a high engine load provide an artificially low estimation of emissions. On the other hand, the measurements should reflect the higher methane emissions generated at the lower engine loads currently adopted by the global fleet under slow steaming.

As Dr Lindstad

The results from my own calculations indicate that the only LNG option which contributes to reducing GHG emissions, is the 2–stroke high pressure dual fuel option (HP-DF-LNG). For all other LNG options, the GHG emissions increases or are equal to using MGO or HFO.

Moreover, she focuses on the methodology used by Thinkstep's analysis and argues that in most cases LNG’s GHG footprint will actually be worse than that of MGO.

On the one hand, Thikstep supports a reduction possibility for all LNG options; On the other hand, Dr Lindstad reports that taking the short-term view (GWP 20) in line with the need to rapidly  reduce GHG emissions, the results for LNG is even worse (apart from the 2-stroke HP-DF option), because the un-combusted methane really boost global warming the first years after it has been emitted.

She concludes that

This letter is based on my own analysis and the best intentions of contributing to sound analysis and decision making.

 

To explore more, click on the PDF herebelow