D2.2.6 Port Readiness for CO₂

The EverLoNG project is funded through the ACT programme (Accelerating CCS Technologies, Horizon2020 Project No 691712). Financial contributions have been made by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, the Netherlands; The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Germany; the Research Council of Norway; the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, UK; and the U.S. Department of Energy. All funders are gratefully acknowledged. Port Readiness for CO2 Overview of Port Readiness Tool for CO2 (PRT-CO2), key criteria and recommendations Author: Richard L Stevenson, Dr Erika Palfi Release Status: Final Dissemination level: Public Date: 09 May 2025 Filename and version: D2.2.6_Port_Readiness_CO2_overview_v1.9_FINAL_PUBLIC @everlong www.everlongccus.eu Deliverable ID: D2.2.6 @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 1 Document History This document is stored in the following location: Filename D2.2.6_Port_Readiness_CO2_overview_v1.9_FINAL_PUBLIC Location EverLoNG SharePoint / WP2 Revision History This document has been through the following revisions: Version No. Revision Date Filename Brief Summary of Changes V1.7 03/04/25 D2.2.6_Port_Readiness_C O2_overview_v1.7 Implemented changes following ML and RS feedback, including list of abbreviations V1.8 09/05/25 D2.2.6_Port_Readiness_C O2_overview_v1.8 Incorporated IAPH feedback Authorisation This document requires the following approvals: AUTHORISATION Name Signature Date WP Leader Ragnhild Skagestad 09/05/25 Project Coordinator Marco Linders 09/05/25 @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 2 © EverLoNG Project, 2025 No third-party textual or artistic material is included in the publication without the copyright holder’s prior consent to further dissemination by other third parties. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Disclaimer The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Funders. Neither the Funders and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 3 Executive summary International shipping takes care of the movement of goods and products between nations. It has the lowest carbon footprint per tonne for long-range transport but still creates around 3% of global CO2 emissions; and this figure is projected to rise without effective intervention 1 . Consequently, the maritime sector has pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050 2 . Among the measures being developed to address this challenge is Onboard Carbon Capture (OCC), which directly targets ship emissions. Additionally, CO₂ transport by ship (CO2 shipping) is emerging as a critical enabler for deploying carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) networks, facilitating emission reductions in other industries. Ports, and wider port communities, will be key to both endeavours in terms of providing and facilitating dedicated and specialised infrastructure, systems and processes to offload and handle this CO2. The EverLoNG project aims to encourage the uptake of OCC by demonstrating its application onboard LNG-fuelled ships and moving it closer to market readiness. The project focuses on technological optimisation, explores integration into existing ship and port infrastructure, supports the development of full-chain CCUS networks, conducts Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and TechnoEconomic Analysis (TEA), and contributes to the development of regulatory frameworks for the safe and effective use of OCC technology in the shipping sector. This report summarises the activities undertaken and the key findings from the broader port readiness exercise conducted under Work Package (WP) 2 Task 2.2 CO2 shipping interoperability and port readiness. The findings and recommendations presented herein directly inform the Port Readiness Tool for CO2 (PRT-CO2). This report is intended as an accompaniment to be used in conjunction with the PRT-CO2. The findings highlight a number of key criteria and considerations relevant for the successful integration of OCC and CO2 shipping within port communities. They indicate that while some hurdles remain before ports are able to play the vital dual role of facilitating the decarbonisation of the maritime sector via OCC and of the wider economy via larger CCUS networks, it is evident that progress is being made and that none of the remaining challenges is deemed insurmountable 1 European Commission (2025). Reducing emissions from the shipping sector. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/transport-emissions/reducing-emissions-shipping-sector_en 2 IMO (2023). Revised GHG reduction strategy for global shipping adopted. Available at: https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/pages/Revised-GHG-reduction-strategy-for-globalshipping-adopted-.aspx @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 4 Table of Contents List of abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 6 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Role of ports in OCC and CO2 shipping .......................................................................... 7 1.2 The need for a Port Readiness Tool for CO2 (PRT-CO2).................................................... 8 1.3 Scope and structure of this report ................................................................................ 8 2 Overview of the port readiness exercise ............................................................................... 8 2.1 CO2 Shipping Interoperability and Industry Group (CSIIG) .............................................. 8 2.1.1 CSIIG#1 (01/11/22) ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 CSIIG#2 (20/09/23) ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 CSIIG#3 (12/02/25) ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 PRT-CO2 ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 What is the PRT-CO2? .....................................................................................................................10 2.2.2 How was the PRT-CO2 developed? ................................................................................................10 2.2.3 Who can use the PRT-CO2? ............................................................................................................11 2.2.4 How does the PRT-CO₂ work? ........................................................................................................12 3 Findings from the Port Readiness exercise .......................................................................... 13 3.1 OCC-specific issues ..................................................................................................... 13 3.1.1 CO₂ volumes and intermittency .....................................................................................................13 3.1.2 CO2 classification ............................................................................................................................14 3.1.3 Integration of solvent processing ..................................................................................................14 3.2 OCC and CO2 shipping - cross-cutting issues ................................................................ 16 3.2.1 Port suitability ................................................................................................................................16 3.2.2 CO₂ specification ............................................................................................................................17 3.2.3 Loading/Offloading ........................................................................................................................19 3.2.4 CO2 Liquefaction .............................................................................................................................19 3.2.5 Intermediate buffer storage ..........................................................................................................20 3.2.6 Market and supply chain ................................................................................................................20 3.2.7 Safety ..............................................................................................................................................21 3.2.8 Regulation ......................................................................................................................................23 4 Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................... 25 4.1 OCC ........................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 OCC & CO2 shipping .................................................................................................... 25 @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 5 5 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ 27 @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 6 List of abbreviations CCS Carbon Capture and Storage CCU Carbon Capture and Utilisation CCUS Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage CII Carbon Intensity Indicator CMF International Association of Ports and Harbors’ Clean Marine Fuels group CO2 Carbon dioxide CSIIG CO2 Shipping Interoperability and Industry Group EEA European Economic Area EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index EEXI Efficiency Existing Ship Index ETS Emissions Trading System/Scheme EU European Union GHG Greenhouse gas HNS Convention International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea IAPH International Association of Ports and Harbors IMO International Maritime Organization LCA Life Cycle Assessment LLMC Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LP Low Pressure (ca. 15 barg, -26oC) LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MEA Monoethanolamine MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee MP Medium Pressure (ca. 5-10 barg, -40oC) MRV Monitoring, Reporting and Verification OCC Onboard Carbon Capture PPE Personal Protective Equipment PRL-CO2 Port Readiness Level for CO2 PRL-MF Port Readiness Level for Marine Fuels PRT-CO2 Port Readiness Tool for CO2 STS Ship-to-ship STT Ship-to-terminal t / kt / Mt (pa) tonne / kilotonne / Megatonne (per annum) T&S Transport & Storage TEA Techno-Economic Analysis UK United Kingdom WP Work Package WPCAP World Ports Climate Action Program @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 7 1 Introduction International shipping takes care of the movement of goods and products between nations. It has the lowest carbon footprint per tonne for long-range transport but still creates around 3% of global CO2 emissions; and this figure is projected to rise without effective intervention 3 . Consequently, the maritime sector has pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050 4 . Among the measures being developed to address this challenge is Onboard Carbon Capture (OCC), which directly targets ship emissions. Additionally, CO₂ transport by ship (CO2 shipping) is emerging as a critical enabler for deploying carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) networks, facilitating emission reductions in other industries. Ports, and wider port communities, will be key to both endeavours in terms of providing and facilitating dedicated and specialised infrastructure, systems and processes to offload and handle this CO2. The EverLoNG project aims to encourage the uptake of OCC by demonstrating its application onboard LNG-fuelled ships and moving it closer to market readiness. The project focuses on technological optimisation, explores integration into existing ship and port infrastructure, supports the development of full-chain CCUS networks, conducts Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and TechnoEconomic Analysis (TEA), and contributes to the development of regulatory frameworks for the safe and effective use of OCC technology in the shipping sector. 1.1 Role of ports in OCC and CO2 shipping Ports may act as both import and export terminals for CO2. This may include pipelines and other infrastructure as part of land-based CO2 networks, e.g. CCUS clusters. In terms of the maritime sector specifically, they may also be required to handle liquid CO2 (LCO2) captured elsewhere and delivered by ship and/or captured directly from a ship’s exhaust gases via OCC. In both cases, ports will need dedicated and specialised infrastructure, systems and processes in place to offload and handle this LCO2 in ways that minimise vessel downtime and deviations from regular port and ship operations. In the case of OCC specifically, ports will also require dedicated systems to handle the solvents used in the capture process. Key aspects pertaining to governance, infrastructure, safety and market domains will likely include a combination of new systems and ones that are aligned with existing LCO2 and other liquid cargo handling, as well as more general shipping procedures and practices. For CO₂ handling at ports to become a central component of CCUS networks and general carbon management strategies, interoperability between ports, ships, and storage hubs will be crucial for efficient and cost-effective operations. As projects develop in different parts of the world, differences in CO₂ transport conditions and offloading infrastructure could create significant challenges for seamless operations. This would be counterproductive and requires significant levels of trust and coordination between project developers if it is to be avoided. The EverLoNG project 3 European Commission (2025). Reducing emissions from the shipping sector. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/transport-emissions/reducing-emissions-shipping-sector_en 4 IMO (2023). Revised GHG reduction strategy for global shipping adopted. Available at: https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/pages/Revised-GHG-reduction-strategy-for-globalshipping-adopted-.aspx @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 8 underscores the need for harmonised infrastructure and handling systems to facilitate smooth CO₂ transfer between ports and storage facilities 5 . 1.2 The need for a Port Readiness Tool for CO2 (PRT-CO2) While OCC and CO2 shipping are technically feasible today, numerous challenges need to be addressed before regular and widespread handling and offloading of CO2 at ports becomes the wellestablished norm that it needs to be. These challenges arise from a combination of the unique characteristics of the maritime sector, including operational unpredictability, logistical complexities, and the specific demands of CO2 handling and integration with CCUS network developments. Therefore, a standardised framework is needed to help ports, port communities, and other key stakeholders collectively plot a trajectory towards the safe and effective handling of CO2. This was the rationale behind the development of the EverLoNG Port Readiness Tool for CO2 (PRT-CO2), which is focused on the role of ports as an interface for and facilitator of both OCC and CO2 shipping. 1.3 Scope and structure of this report This report summarises the activities undertaken and the key findings from the broader port readiness exercise conducted under WP2 Task 2.2 CO2 shipping interoperability and port readiness. The findings and recommendations presented herein directly inform the PRT-CO2. This report serves as an accompaniment to be used alongside and in conjunction with the PRT-CO2. The findings highlight a number of key criteria and considerations relevant to the successful integration of OCC and CO2 shipping within port communities. They indicate that while some hurdles remain before ports are able to play the vital dual role of facilitating the decarbonisation of the maritime sector via OCC and of the wider economy via larger CCUS networks, it is evident that progress is being made and that none of the remaining challenges is deemed insurmountable. Section 2 of this report provides an overview of the wider port readiness exercise. Section 3 presents the range of key criteria and issues that were identified for OCC and CO2 shipping. Conclusions and recommendations are summarised in section 4. 2 Overview of the port readiness exercise This section describes the two main activities undertaken as part of the broader port readiness exercise: the CO2 Shipping Interoperability and Industry Group (CSIIG) and the PRT-CO2. 2.1 CO2 Shipping Interoperability and Industry Group (CSIIG) The CSIIG forum was established to bring together experts and key stakeholders from across OCC and CCUS spectra to discuss and help efforts to develop offloading strategies and establish guidelines and recommendations for CO2 shipping interoperability, port readiness, port infrastructure, CO2 specifications, solvent handling, and other relevant concerns. Three online workshops were held in November 2022, September 2023 and February 2025, bringing together 5 Parmiter, P J M (2022). D2.2.1 CO2 Shipping Interoperability Briefing Report. Available at: https://everlongccus.eu/index.php/about-the-project/results @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 15 distinct properties and operational implications. The EverLoNG project used a first-generation monoethanolamine (MEA) solvent. MEA is commonly used in land-based systems and is consequently well-documented and characterised in existing literature. However, as OCC technologies continue to advance, one potential issue that may arise is that different systems could employ different solvents, each with distinct requirements for regeneration, disposal, and maintenance. This variance could affect infrastructure and interoperability, potentially decreasing the number of ports available for vessels to replenish spent solvent. Solvent handling will be a new activity for ports, and it will bring uncertainty. In the pursuit of more effective and efficient solutions, the selection and management of solvents is a key factor. From a technology development perspective, imposing a ‘standard’ solvent would be counterproductive and very difficult to implement. On the one hand, giving developers the freedom to select the solvent that best aligns with their specific CCS system requirements and operational contexts is beneficial; on the other hand, it introduces complexity when considering the logistical and infrastructural nuances of solvent handling that would need to take place at ports. Here, the distinction between ships with a consistent home port and those without becomes particularly significant. The former may establish bespoke solvent management systems, enhancing the efficiency and sustainability of their CCS processes. Meanwhile, those without a designated home port may face additional challenges, requiring flexible and resilient solvent handling strategies that accommodate varying port facilities and regulations. @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 16 3.2 OCC and CO2 shipping - cross-cutting issues Figure 3: Schematic showing a full CCS value chain and highlighting the infrastructure, systems and processes that will likely be needed for successful integration of CO2 shipping within port communities (source: Industrial decarbonisation: getting ready for non-pipeline transport 15 ) 3.2.1 Port suitability The ports most likely to undertake CO2 handling operations are larger ports aiming to become global CO2 hubs and those associated with existing or planned CCUS networks. Whether for OCC or CO2 shipping and whether for export or import operations, such ports will generally require the following: • Quayside infrastructure/facilities o Space available for key infrastructure for loading/offloading, buffer storage, and perhaps CO2 conditioning (liquefaction) o Bunkering facilities o Utilities: water and electricity supply, waste removal facilities • Be able to accommodate suitably sized vessels, and in sufficient numbers, so as to be able to cope with demand Access to CO₂ infrastructure, such as pipelines, intermediate storage, or transport facilities, is critical for seamless supply chain operations and the successful deployment of OCC. Currently, only a select few ports connected to the food and drink sector 16 or CCUS projects have some of the necessary infrastructure and/or systems already in place, such as the Ports of Sluiskil and Øygarden (Northern Lights) and the Port of Esbjerg (Greensand), though none are currently configured for OCC. Further 15 UKRI (2024). Industrial decarbonisation: getting ready for non-pipeline transport. Available at: https://www.ukri.org/publications/industrial-decarbonisation-getting-ready-for-non-pipeline-transport/ 16 Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (2024). Concept study to offload onboard captured CO2. Available at: https://www.gcformd.org/projects/lco2-offloading-concept-study/ @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 17 development is required for full OCC deployment. While this is expected to change as large-scale CCUS networks develop, the significant expansion of port facilities and downstream handling networks needed for widespread OCC deployment will necessitate considerable time, planning, and coordination between port authorities, shipping companies, and CO₂ transport and storage operators. In addition to those ports associated with specific CCUS projects, it is expected that larger ports 17 will take the lead where OCC is concerned. This is predominantly due to their higher throughput and existing facilities and expertise. Large ports are quite simply busier places, seeing more throughput than smaller ones. They are also typically very diverse, with multiple terminals catering to different vessel types and cargo operations. Developing flexible CO₂ reception facilities capable of handling various ship designs, volumes, and offloading intervals that do not disrupt existing operations will be challenging, but these same characteristics offer the opportunity to utilise or adapt existing facilities and expertise, and to develop economies of scale. In particular, larger ports are more likely to have experience and facilities in place for the handling of other liquefied gases, such as LPG and LNG, that share some similarities with LCO2 18 , 19 , and can thereby provide somewhat of a blueprint for LCO2 handling operations. As the field then develops, it is expected that smaller ports will also begin to offer OCC services. 3.2.2 CO₂ specification CO2 specification is critical to the entire CCUS value chain. Specification standards are currently dictated by large-scale CCUS projects based on the purity requirements for transport infrastructure and geological storage sites. These standards are typically in the public domain 20 , 21 . They also pose a significant challenge to achieving cost-effective CCUS solutions. The implication for ports is that they may need to consider providing CO2 conditioning facilities. 3.2.2.1 Standard composition The composition of CO2 pertains to the temperature and pressure at which it is transported and the level of impurities that it might contain. Temperature and pressure are dictated by the amount of CO2 being transported, the distance being travelled, and to some extent, the cost of construction materials. It is generally accepted that at least two temperature and pressure ‘standards’ will be suitable - low pressure (LP; approx. 15 barg, - 26oC) and medium pressure (MP; approx. 5-10 barg, -55oC to -40oC) - for operations in and around the North Sea region. LP will likely be preferred for transporting over longer distances due to its lower capital (tanks) and operating (energy) costs. With both LP and MP needed, it will not be feasible or advisable for ports to offer facilities or services operating at a single standardised temperature and pressure regime. 17 Such as the Port of Rotterdam and Port of Antwerp-Bruges 18 Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (2024). Concept study to offload onboard captured CO2. Available at: https://www.gcformd.org/projects/lco2-offloading-concept-study/ 19 European Commission JRC Publications Repository (2024). Shaping the future CO2 transport network for Europe. Available at: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC136709 20 Northern Lights (2024). Liquid CO2 (LCO2) Quality Specifications. Available at: https://norlights.com/wpcontent/uploads/2024/06/NorthernLights-GS-co2-spec2024.pdf 21 Porthos (2021). Porthos CO2 Specifications. Available at: https://www.porthosco2.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2021/09/CO2-specifications.pdf @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 18 In terms of the chemical composition of the CO2, or the types and levels of impurities present, however, an agreed standard may indeed be desirable. This is because of the potential for corrosion of infrastructure and handling equipment caused by impurities. CO2 offloading systems – both OCC and CO2 shipping – will include vapour equilibrium return lines, critical to balancing mass flows during cargo transfer. These return lines, as well as storage infrastructure, are sensitive to impurities in the CO2 stream, which differ depending on the specific capture technologies and purification processes employed. These impurities can lead to contamination and corrosion, both of which will be extremely costly 22 . Ports may, therefore, need to consider CO2 conditioning and purification systems/services. In the case of OCC, this is likely particularly relevant for ports handling multiple ships with different capture technologies and/or fuel types where the co-mingling of different ‘flavours’ of CO2 is likely. Contrary to the above, some companies intend to operate at high pressure, adjusting their operations on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific requirements of a given value chain 23 . This shows that there is likely to be a degree of fluidity across and within operators. Aiming for a single standard for high-purity CO2 is generally considered to be unnecessary and counterproductive, incurring higher costs. Still, while some variation is likely and even desirable, that too will have to be within a defined envelope. Costs for ports are likely to be incurred from either the remediation of damage caused by impurities, the extent of which would be unplanned and unknown, or from additional conditioning facilities, which would be both planned and known, i.e. predictable while ensuring seamless operations. Efforts are ongoing to establish CO2 stream specifications and standardisation through collaboration between the EU and the UK 24 . 3.2.2.2 Conditioning The question as to where CO2 conditioning should take place is three-fold: where will the facilities be located physically, where in the value chain will this occur, i.e. who will do it, and how will it be done? In terms of value chain, current T&S projects, e.g. Northern Lights 25 , Greensand, and Prinos CO2 26 , place the final conditioning step outside of their business models, thereby placing the responsibility and cost onto emitters. This can be done using fixed facilities at the quayside, as is currently the case for several projects. Alternatively, it can be done via floating CCS infrastructure that includes a final 22 Riviera (2025). CO2 vapour-return strategies face cost and regulatory hurdles. Available at: https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/co2-vapor-return-strategies-face-cost-and-regulatoryhurdles-84146 23 Carbon Collectors will operate a barge system at high pressure and is not aiming for a uniform CO2 standard. As presented during UKCCSRC public webinar (18/03/25) European CCUS webinar series - CCUS in the Netherlands. Available at: https://ukccsrc.ac.uk/european-ccus-webinar-series-2025/ 24 CCSA/ZEP (2024). Achieving a European market for CO2 transport by ship. Available at https://zeroemissionsplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/ZEP_report_HD.pdf 25 Northern Lights (2025). How to store CO2 with Northern Lights. Available at: https://norlights.com/how-tostore-co2-with-northern-lights/ 26 As presented by Greensand and Prinos CO2 during Carbon Capture European Summit public webinar (20/03/25) CCES First Look: Spotlight on Europe’s Groundbreaking CCUS Projects. Available at: https://www.carboncaptureeuropesummit.com/webinar-europe-s-leading-ccus-projects @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 19 onboard CO2 conditioning phase prior to storage, as is the case for the Stella Maris CCS project 27 . In both cases, it is expected that differences in CO2 quality and/or composition – for post-combustion CO2 at least; pre-combustion separated CO2 may present additional challenges – will be dealt with relatively easily using established technologies. For the same reason, it is not necessarily anticipated that separate facilities will be needed for OCC CO2 and CO2 from other sources. While conditioning can, in principle, be done onboard vessels, it is unlikely to be feasible on OCCequipped ships. This is due to a combination of space restrictions and cost implications for treating the relatively small amounts of CO2 captured. Either way, ports will play a crucial role in facilitating these services. This makes sense for several reasons: ports will constitute the last upstream point before the CO2 enters the final downstream transport and storage (T&S), or utilisation, phase; some ports will become aggregators of CO2 from various sources and offer temporary buffer storage; and the aforementioned issues related to impurities and co-mingling. 3.2.3 Loading/Offloading 28 CO2 can be loaded/offloaded using flexible hoses or fixed loading arms, both of which are wellunderstood technologies in operation today for handling liquified gases, including CO2. Individual ISO tanks can also be used, but the use of flexible hoses is the conventional method of conveying liquids from ship-to-terminal (STT) or ship-to-ship (STS), or vice versa. To connect the hoses from the port to the vessel, a system to carry the hoses to the vessel is needed. For this, a crane or derrick is usually used. The connection hoses-manifold requires manpower. A fixed loading arm, as currently used for LPG and LNG, is a mechanical arm of articulated steel pieces that connects to the ship while following the movements of the ship due to changing draft, tide, and wind. A return vent is required to maintain the pressure equilibrium between the ship and quayside storage 29 . 3.2.4 CO2 Liquefaction For larger ports operating as CCUS hubs, CO2 is likely to arrive from different sources and via different transport modes. If imported via pipeline, CO2 is likely to arrive as a gas and will, therefore, need to be liquefied for temporary buffer storage before onward transportation via ship (or road/rail) if it is being exported. Liquefaction facilities will also be required to recover CO2 boil-off gas from storage and loading operations. Boil-off recovery will also be needed for CO2 offloading operations, where, in the case of OCC, LCO2 is offloaded and temporarily stored before onward transport for either storage or utilisation as part of a larger CCUS network. 27 EverLoNG (2023). Exploring the Future of Sustainable Shipping: Insights from the 2nd CSIIG Workshop. Available at: https://everlongccus.eu/index.php/ships-log/exploring-future-sustainable-shipping-insights-2ndcsiig-workshop 28 Skagestad, R. et al. (2024). CO2 offloading alternatives and guidelines. Available at: https://everlongccus.eu/about-the-project/results 29 Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (2024). Concept study to offload onboard captured CO2. Available at: https://www.gcformd.org/projects/lco2-offloading-concept-study/ @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 20 3.2.5 Intermediate buffer storage The amount of buffer storage required will depend on a range of project/site-specific variables, including but not limited to berthing capacity, expected CO2 volumes, ship capacities, routes, schedules, travel times, and quayside land availability – see Figure 4 below. Figure 4: CSIIG#1 30 participant responses to the question “What do you perceive to be the key criteria that will drive the size of dockside storage? (select up to 3)” While estimates vary, a minimum quayside storage capacity of at least 140% of ship capacity has been proposed, with additional capacity recommended where further uncertainties are concerned, and upper estimates suggesting capacities capable of accommodating as much as 3-5 ship cargoes, potentially amounting to as much as 100 kt of buffer storage, will be needed 31 . One way to circumvent space restrictions is to utilise floating storage barges 32 , which can be replaced once full, in the same way that skips are used for land-based waste. The Port of AntwerpBruges already has a framework in place for STS bunkering of LNG that could, depending on infrastructure deployed, be readily applied to LCO2. Other LNG-handling ports are very likely to have similar frameworks in place that could also be adapted. 3.2.6 Market and supply chain While market and supply chain factors are not entirely within the control of port communities seeking to develop CO2 handling services, ports can play an obvious and important role in forming partnerships with other key stakeholders from across the maritime sector, CCUS, wider industrial sector, and government to shape a way forward. This is particularly true for larger ports with significant industrial bases, given their importance to national economies and their need to decarbonise. 30 EverLoNG (2023). Shipping Interoperability Industry Group gets underway. Available at: https://everlongccus.eu/index.php/ships-log/shipping-interoperability-industry-group-gets-underway 31 CCSA/ZEP (2024). Achieving a European market for CO2 transport by ship. Available at https://zeroemissionsplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/ZEP_report_HD.pdf 32 Carbon Collectors (2025). CO2 transport and storage: This is how it is done. Available at: https://carboncollectors.nl/co2-transport-storage/ @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 21 3.2.6.1 Business models and finance As is the case with wider CCUS networks, business cases for commercial OCC and CO2 shipping operations are yet to materialise. The cost of change remains stubbornly high, while the cost of carbon remains too low to incentivise owners and operators into action and so government subsidy is needed to stimulate the market and encourage private (co-)investment. Early investment should be encouraged in order to develop supply chains so that projects will be better able to hit the ground running once the various other facilitating mechanisms are in place. 3.2.6.2 Ship type and availability Transporting LCO2 via ship is a proven technology deployed in food-grade and other industrial applications, typically at low or medium pressure (6-15 barg). Some degree of standardisation is desirable for dedicated CO2 carriers serving large CCUS networks. The Northern Lights project, for example, has already taken delivery of the first of four carriers designed to operate at medium pressure of 15 barg (max. 19 barg) and -26oC (min. -35oC) 33 . It is anticipated that medium pressure will become the norm for vessels of up to 25,000m3 capacity operating in/around the North Sea region. However, lower pressures (5-10 barg, -55 to -40oC) may be more suitable for longer distances. The fleet of CO2 carriers that will be required to service the North Sea region is, of course, yet to be built - a process that can take up to 30 months per ship with current build start waiting times of between 3-4 years. Estimates place the number of ships that will likely be required by 2030 for EU and UK CO2 shipping operations at between 10-20 purpose-built vessels. Such uncertainty and long lead times present clear challenges for ports in terms of planning for initial CO2 capacities in a way that also facilitates further expansion once projects become operational and need these services at port. 3.2.7 Safety The main safety concerns pertain to CO2 and, specifically for OCC, any hazardous chemicals used in the capturing process, e.g. solvents, which in the case of the EverLoNG project was MEA. CO2 is an asphyxiating gas processed under pressure and utilises storage systems with high potential energy that can be released in a damage scenario. Solvents may have toxic, flammable, and corrosive properties, to which personnel could be exposed during replenishing work, maintenance, or system leaks. Leakages, either during offloading or replenishing operations, pose a significant safety concern, exacerbated by the fact that such operations can occur near populated areas. In very general terms, there is, therefore, a strong emphasis on appropriate emergency systems, the necessity for port communities to ensure competency and training standards for personnel involved in LCO2 handling through, for example, structured classroom training sessions, and effective public engagement strategies. These safety concerns are discussed more fully in the EverLoNG WP5 report D5.2.3 Risks and safeguards 34 . For ease of reference, the list of preventative and mitigating measures relevant to CO2 offloading and hazardous chemicals from that report is repeated here. 33 Northern Lights (2024). Northern Lights’ first CO2 transport ship ready for delivery. Available at: https://norlights.com/news/northern-lights-first-co2-transport-ship-ready-for-delivery/ 34 Leisner, M. (2025). Risks and safeguards. Available at: https://everlongccus.eu/about-the-project/results @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 22 3.2.7.1 CO2 preventative measures • Piping systems used for offloading CO2 should be designed to minimise the probability of leakages, contain leakages if they occur, and avoid cold surfaces. • The construction and support of the offloading manifold should be strong enough to prevent damage to the offloading system in a drift-off, where the offloading hose is the only point connecting the ship to the bunkering facility. 3.2.7.2 CO2 mitigating measures • The ship's CO2 offloading station should be arranged to reduce the consequences of a release event as far as possible. This implies preferably locating the offloading station on the open deck. If an open deck arrangement is not possible, the offloading system should be arranged to minimise the need for manned operations and possibly be fitted with additional forced ventilation to dilute minor leakages. • The CO2 offloading station should be arranged to withstand the consequences of cold leakages from the offloading arrangements. • Personnel involved in offloading operations should be outfitted with appropriate personal protective equipment. • The offloading hose should be arranged to separate the ship and the bunkering facility without releasing CO2 or overloading the ship or reception facility manifolds. • The offloading system should be arranged with means to detect leakage and systems to stop the offloading process automatically. • The offloading system should have a shut-down valve in the offloading station to facilitate the emergency closing of the CO2 discharge. • An emergency shut-down communication system should be arranged between the ship and the reception facility. 3.2.7.3 Hazardous chemicals preventative measures • Piping systems should be designed and arranged to minimise the probability of leakages. This implies using materials that will not be deteriorated by the fluid (e.g. resistant to corrosion, compatible with the chemical), are suitable for the system's design temperature, are arranged and supported to ensure that operational conditions do not cause undue stresses and are connected by welding as far as possible. Where welding is not possible, joining methods are chosen to minimise the probability of leakage. 3.2.7.4 Hazardous chemicals mitigating measures • Piping systems should be designed to ensure that operational releases from purging, gas freeing and pressure relief are managed safely. This is also applicable for emergency releases due to system leaks and loss of vacuum insulation on tanks and systems. • Any leaks from tanks and piping systems should be detectable, and it should be possible to isolate the leak point from large reservoirs of the hazardous fluid in question. • The chemical containment and piping systems should be arranged to contain and drain any leakage. • Ignition sources should be controlled, leak sources should be adequately shielded, and suitable passive and active fire safety measures should be arranged if the process fluid constitutes a fire risk. • Spaces containing chemical storage tanks should be arranged with ventilation systems able to dilute chemical leakages and transfer them to a safe discharge in the open air. @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 23 • Suitable PPE, operating and maintenance procedures and training should be available to relevant personnel. Eyewash and safety showers should be provided at the appropriate location(s). 3.2.8 Regulation Regulation and policy surrounding OCC, CO2 shipping, and wider CCUS networks are still under development. Several of these have already been discussed above: CO2 composition, solvent requirements, training, and safety. Additionally, there are several important overarching regulatory gaps that are key to influencing how and how quickly OCC as a maritime decarbonisation option and wider CCUS networks and CO2 markets develop. Bridging these gaps will be vital in providing confidence and certainty to project developers regarding issues such as cross-border movement of CO2, accountability, liability, and ownership. 3.2.8.1 OCC regulatory gaps 35 Regulations covering OCC remain limited, but efforts are underway within the IMO and EU towards developing a suitable OCC regulatory framework. Currently, there are no IMO standards or technical requirements in place, e.g. under MARPOL or other related frameworks. Following the Marine Environment Protection Committee 81 (MEPC 81) in March 2024, however, the IMO is now working to establish an OCC regulatory framework for GHG emissions reduction. Maritime transport has only recently been included in the EU ETS, beginning in January 2024. The EU ETS also includes provisions under which OCC could be eligible, provided robust MRV processes are in place for both CCS and CCU options. Another relevant aspect of the EU ETS pertains to the vapour equilibrium return process, as discussed in section 3.2.2.1, and boil-off recovery, as discussed in section 3.2.4. The economic implications of any losses incurred combined with issues surrounding ownership of CO2 under the EU ETS could be significant if not properly accounted for. The EU ETS is likely to require some sort of compensation mechanism to ensure that these do not unduly impede progress 36 , 37 . Alignment of other ETSs in these regards, i.e. the UK ETS, will also be key. Fuel EU Maritime does not currently include OCC as an emissions reduction option, though this is expected to change when it is reviewed in 2027; again, MRV processes pending. Regulatory requirements for OCC should be incorporated consistently into existing relevant regulations, e.g. Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI), Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), as well as the EU ETS and Fuel EU Maritime. 35 DNV (2024). The potential of onboard carbon capture in shipping. Available at: https://www.dnv.com/maritime/publications/the-potential-of-onboard-carbon-capture-in-shippingdownload/ 36 CCSA/ZEP (2024). Achieving a European market for CO2 transport by ship. Available at https://zeroemissionsplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/ZEP_report_HD.pdf 37 Riviera (2025). CO2 vapour-return strategies face cost and regulatory hurdles. Available at: https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/co2-vapor-return-strategies-face-cost-and-regulatoryhurdles-84146 @everlongccus | www.everlongccus.eu | Page 24 3.2.8.2 CO2 shipping regulatory gaps 38 CCUS is a key part of climate policy across the EU, EEA, and the UK, with developments and projects advancing across the region. If CCUS is to reach its full potential, however, a multi-user, crossborder, flexible EU-wide CO2 T&S network will be essential, and CO2 shipping will play a key role in making that happen. There is currently no comprehensive legal framework covering all stages of the CCUS value chain, and among those that are relevant to the transportation of CO2 by ship, there remain a number of important challenges. The major regulatory hurdles are the London Protocol and the UK and EU ETSs, with other potential concerns of liability in the event of accidents. 3.2.8.2.1 London Protocol The London Protocol prohibits the cross-border transport of waste, including CO2. However, an amendment to Article 6 was adopted in 2009 that allows for the transboundary export of captured CO2 for the purposes of permanent storage under the seabed. While this has not yet entered into force due to not having acquired the requisite level of ratification from contracting parties, an interim solution under EU Directive 2009/31/EC (the CCS Directive) encourages bilateral agreements for CCS, but this does not cover CO2 shipping. This amendment has considerably smoothed the path for CCS in general, to the point where it is generally now considered a purely administrative hurdle. However, work remains to be done to fully include CO2 shipping. 3.2.8.2.2 EU ETS and UK ETS alignment Nevertheless, there remains some uncertainty around how the London Protocol will be managed in the event that captured CO2 is actually transported across borders for geological storage. In terms of CO2 transported between the EU and the UK, the EU ETS and UK ETS are expected to play an important facilitating role. Alignment between the two systems will be necessary to ensure that CO2 captured under one regime can be legitimately stored under the other, thereby avoiding the need to surrender allowances in either direction. Given that both systems share a common heritage, it is hoped that this will not prove unduly difficult 39 . 3.2.8.2.3 HNS Convention and Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS Convention) was adopted in 2010. It governs liability and compensation in the event of an incident at sea involving hazardous or noxious substances, modelled on the international legal regime applicable to the carriage of oil and gas. Yet to enter into force, due to a low number of ratifications, it will apply to CO2 carriers, imposing liability on ship owners in the event of an incident at sea. While it applies to CO2 transport, it remains unclear whether it will prove suitable for the specific purpose of CO2 shipping in the context of CCUS. Therefore, further amendments may be needed, and stakeholders should be aware of this. Until the HNS Convention enters into force, the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) is expected to apply, implying that progress should continue. 38 Argüello, G. et al. (2024). Transboundary transportation of CO2 streams by ships: regulatory barriers for scaling up carbon capture and sub-seabed storage. Frontiers in Marine Science. ORIGINAL RESEARCH article. Front. Mar. Sci., 01 October 2024. Sec. Global Change and the Future Ocean. Volume 11 – 2024. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2024.1423962 39 CCSA (2024). Accelerating a Europe-wide CO2 storage market. Available at: https://www.xodusgroup.com/media/o2mjjood/ccsa-accelerating-a-europe-wide-co2-storage-market.pdf