Fortescue Determined to Decarbonise International Shipping

Last Updated on: 4th June 2025, 12:04 am

Fortescue is on a mission to achieve “Real Zero” under the able leadership of Dr Andrew Forrest. As such, it needs to reduce not just the carbon emissions in its Pilbara (Western Australia) mining operations, but also the shipping of that iron ore around the world. In 2025, that is expected to be approximately 200 million metric tons. Fortescue’s FY23 Climate Change Report indicates they emit over 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 annually from their iron ore operations and shipping. Curtailing that much CO2 is a big job.

CleanTechnica has reported on Fortescue’s efforts in mining and shipping, here. Recently, the mining giant reported on its next step in the quest for CO2 free shipping, fuelling its massive ore carriers with ammonia. But, is green ammonia the answer?

Fortescue has set a target of zero scope 3 emissions by 2040. That means no more fuelling its bulk ore carriers with bunker oil. To that end, FFI has signed an agreement with Bocimar to charter an ammonia-powered bulk dry goods vessel. Both Bocimar, part of CMB.TECH, and Fortescue are committed to decarbonising the shipping industry. CMB is based in Belgium and has been operating for over 100 years.

The plan is to use solar energy to split water molecules (electrolysis) to produce hydrogen. Then use this green hydrogen to make ammonia. Sounds complicated — but not much more than the refining of oil. The ammonia will then be burned, releasing the hydrogen to power the ship. In this case, that’s a 210,000 dead weight tonnage (DWT) Newcastlemax vessel — so called because it is designed to navigate the port of Newcastle in Australia. Quite a step up from the ammonia-powered tugboat, The Green Pioneer, currently travelling through ports in Europe. The dual-fuelled bulk carrier is expected to be delivered by the end of next year.

“Green ammonia is gaining recognition as a promising shipping fuel due to its zero-carbon combustion and existing infrastructure for handling it. While not yet widely accepted, it’s considered a viable alternative to fossil fuels and is actively being developed and tested for marine engine applications,” Science Direct tells us.

“Our landmark agreement with Bocimar sends a clear signal to the market — now is the time for shipowners to invest in ammonia-powered ships. The days of ships operating on dirty bunker fuel, which is responsible for three per cent of global carbon emissions, are numbered. We continue to implore shipping regulators to show the character and leadership that is necessary to ensure this happens sooner rather than later,” Fortescue Metals CEO Dino Otranto said.

“Our agreement with Bocimar is just the beginning and is a critical step in addressing our Scope 3 emissions. Through the Fortescue Green Pioneer we have demonstrated that the technology to decarbonise shipping exists now. We will continue to work with like-minded companies like Bocimar to transition our fleet to low and zero-emissions vessels and help accelerate the widespread adoption of green ammonia as a marine fuel.

“Fortescue and Bocimar have been close partners for more than 20 years. We share the same values and are both passionate about decarbonising the maritime industry. Based on our common belief that green ammonia is the fuel of the future, we were able to conclude this important agreement on the road to zero emission shipping.”

“This is the beginning of an exciting journey to build more ammonia-powered ships that will stimulate more green ammonia production projects. We need to decarbonise today to navigate tomorrow,” Alexander Saverys, CEO of CMB.TECH, said.

But is green ammonia safe? Fortescue reassures us: “Used across the globe for well over a hundred years, the requirements for the safe production, storage and use of ammonia are well established. Applicable industry codes and standards and best practice guidelines will be followed by Fortescue.” I am a little nervous, I remember Lebanon.

It’s a long time since I did science at high school, and I hope our readers with a chemistry background can enlighten me. One of my concerns is the possibility that burning ammonia (NH3) may create nitrous oxide (NOX) — a worse GHG than CO2. I turned to climateworks for more information.

They reminded me that the International Maritime Organisation has a goal of zero lifecycle emissions by 2050. River and coastal shipping are increasingly being fuelled by battery electric. However, international shipping still requires onboard supplies — even though this can be augmented by efficiency measures, and wind. Ammonia is more energy dense than hydrogen, but it will require more storage space than conventional fuels. On the plus side, it can be stored in existing propane tanks.

“Ammonia derived from coal and natural gas is relatively abundant and affordable, and its production is well-established in the fertilizer industry. Global ammonia supply chains can be adapted to the shipping industry, although supplying fuel to ships from the shore (a process known as bunkering) will require major infrastructure investments. Overall, there is growing momentum for ammonia across the shipping industry. Shipping companies have already started ordering ammonia-powered vessels, and analysts project ammonia will make up approximately 35% to 50% of the marine fuel mix by 2050. However, ammonia production does bring significant challenges and risks that must be addressed before widespread adoption.”

Ammonia is toxic to humans and marine life even at low levels. Existing maritime regulations do yet address the risks associated with ammonia use in international shipping.

“In theory, harmless nitrogen gas is the only emission associated with burning ammonia. In practice, however, combustion in ship engines can yield nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2), which are harmful to health and cause acid rain — and nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 273 times greater than CO2. Ammonia also requires a high ignition temperature, and any unburned ammonia can escape through the exhaust. For every gram of ammonia fuel consumed, every milligram of N2O released from ammonia-fueled engines would reduce by around 25% the climate benefits of switching from fossil fuels to green ammonia. Furthermore, ammonia emissions also reduce air quality by significantly contributing to the formation of particulate matter (PM2.5).”

Manufacturers are already developing ship engines that optimize efficiency while minimizing emissions — for example, the MariNH3 project in the United Kingdom. Then, there is the cost to produce green ammonia — currently almost 3 times the price of grey ammonia. At the moment, heavy fuel oil costs around USD$600 per ton, almost half the price of green ammonia. However, for the equivalent energy, a ship would need twice as much green ammonia as HFO, leaving a price gap of USD$1,400 to USD$1,650 per ton.

As technology matures and production scales up, prices are expected to fall (just like batteries). Combine this with a carbon price and emissions trading schemes (European Union Emissions Trading System, for example) and we may achieve price parity somewhere between 2030 and 2035. And that’s not too far away.

As readers pointed out in this previous CleanTechnica article, “He could sit back and still make money, but he is the real deal and is passionate about reducing fossil fuel use.” Of course, it does help that Western Australia is sparsely populated and none of the abundant kangaroos wear MAGA hats. Well done, Dr Forrest.