Kandla Port has launched India’s first shore-to-ship methanol refuelling trial, positioning the initiative as a breakthrough for green shipping corridors. The pilot project supports India’s commitment to net zero by 2050. Yet the port authority has not disclosed the environmental risk assessment framework governing this experimental fuel transition or the liability allocation if methanol handling creates operational hazards.
Methanol presents both opportunity and complexity for maritime decarbonization. The fuel burns cleaner than heavy fuel oil but requires specialized storage infrastructure and safety protocols. Ships must retrofit engines and fuel systems to accommodate methanol’s different combustion properties. The shore infrastructure needs upgraded handling equipment and emergency response capabilities.
The regulatory environment for alternative maritime fuels remains fragmented. India’s Directorate General of Shipping has issued guidelines for methanol as marine fuel, but enforcement mechanisms vary across port authorities. International Maritime Organization standards provide broad frameworks rather than specific operational requirements for port-based methanol bunkering.
Kandla’s trial operates under existing port environmental clearances that were designed for conventional fuel operations. The Environmental Impact Assessment process for the original port development did not account for methanol-handling risks or mitigation measures. This creates a gap between the trial’s environmental claims and the actual risk management protocols in place.
The financial structure of the methanol supply chain also lacks transparency. The trial involves multiple stakeholders including shipping companies, fuel suppliers, and port operators, but the cost allocation and revenue sharing arrangements remain undisclosed. This opacity makes it difficult to assess whether the green fuel premium reflects actual environmental benefits or simply shifts costs between participants.
Maritime decarbonisation trials like Kandla’s generate substantial data on fuel performance, safety incidents, and operational efficiency. However, there is no standardised framework for sharing this information across the industry. Each port authority and shipping company treats trial results as proprietary, limiting the broader learning that could accelerate green fuel adoption.
My Boardroom Takeaway: Directors overseeing port operations or shipping investments should examine whether sustainability initiatives are subject to adequate risk disclosure frameworks. Companies participating in alternative fuel trials may wish to consider establishing clear protocols for sharing safety data and environmental performance metrics. The gap between green marketing and actual risk management in experimental fuel projects creates both reputational and operational exposure that boards need to address proactively.