Case Study XI: Bio30 Blend with MGO vs. HFO – Why Fuel Base Matters

As shipping companies explore the use of biofuels to meet FuelEU Maritime requirements, the question is no longer whether to blend but how to blend. Today’s case study compares two alternative fuel strategies, both using Bio30 blends, but based on different fossil components: MGO and HFO. The difference in cost is smaller than many might expect.

Bio30-MGO vs. Bio30-HFO: Setup and Scope

Both scenarios assume a vessel consuming a combination of fuels, namely 3,000 tonnes of MGO, 500 tonnes of LFO, and 700 tonnes of HFO. On top, the required amount of Bio30 blend is added.

The Bio30 blend consists of 30% sustainable biofuel and 70% fossil fuel. The goal in both cases is to use the blend to precisely offset the vessel’s GHG intensity down to the FuelEU threshold, resulting in a compliance balance of zero. That means no penalty, but also no surplus.

Case 1: Bio30 – MGO-Based Bio Blend

In the MGO-based scenario, the Bio30 blend used is priced at 940€ per tonne. Thanks to its relatively high lower calorific value (0.04099 MJ/g) and favorable GHG intensity (68.45 gCO₂e/MJ), only about 343 tonnes of Bio30 are required to bring the vessel into compliance, helping to reduce the vessel’s overall GHG intensity to the target level of 89.34 gCO₂e/MJ.

From a compliance standpoint, the result is exactly what’s needed: a balance of zero with no FuelEU penalty, no surplus earnings, and full avoidance of FuelEU costs. The vessel does incur ETS costs of about 742,500€.

Overall, the MGO-based Bio30 strategy leads to an OPEX of 3.25 million €, of which 2.51 million € is fuel cost and the rest from compliance obligations. This forms the baseline for comparison.

Case Summary:

• Bio30 (MGO) Price: 940 €/t

• LCV: 0.04099 MJ/g

• GHG Intensity: 68.45 g CO₂e/MJ

• Required Volume: 343 t Bio30

• FuelEU GHG Intensity: 89.34 g CO₂e/MJ

• FuelEU Penalty: 0 €

• EU ETS Cost: 742,514.63 €

• Total OPEX (Fuel + Compliance Costs): 3,250,071.10 €

Case 2: Bio30 – HFO-Based Bio Blend

In the HFO-based case, the Bio30 blend is slightly cheaper at 812 € per tonne, but it comes with a slightly lower energy content (0.03945 MJ/g) and a marginally higher GHG intensity (69.14 gCO₂e/MJ). As a result, more of it is needed, about 369 tonnes, to achieve the same zero compliance balance. The vessel again reaches exactly 89.34 gCO₂e/MJ, with no FuelEU penalty or surplus.

ETS costs are slightly higher than in the MGO case (about 744,000 € vs. 742,500 €), largely due to the increased total energy use. But thanks to the lower fuel price, the total fuel cost comes in at about 2.48 million €, and the total OPEX lands at 3.23 million €. This is a difference of just over 21,000 € compared to the MGO scenario.

Case Summary:

• Bio30 (HFO) Price: 812 €/t

• LCV: 0.03945 MJ/g

• GHG Intensity: 69.14 g CO₂e/MJ

• Required Volume: 369 t Bio30

• FuelEU GHG Intensity: 89.34 g CO₂e/MJ

• FuelEU Penalty: €0

• EU ETS Cost: 744,267.84 €

• Total OPEX (Fuel + Compliance Costs): 3,228,585.17 €

Comparing Both Scenarios

Both Bio30 strategies (MGO and HFO-based blends) succeed in reaching a compliant GHG intensity without incurring FuelEU penalties. The HFO-based blend offers slightly lower overall OPEX due to its cheaper per-tonne cost, even though more of it is required.

However, this narrow margin should not be overstated. Operational preferences such as fuel handling, storage stability, or availability may still lead shipping companies to prefer the MGO-based blend in many cases. What’s clear is that both are viable options and deliver comparable outcomes.

Pooling Without Biofuel: A Straight-Forward Alternative

For comparison, a third scenario considers the same vessel operating on fossil fuels only, relying on external pooling to meet FuelEU compliance. Note that this scenario assumes an extra MDO consumption to match the additional energy consumption of the previous Bio30 (HFO) scenario. In this case, the vessel reaches a GHG intensity of 90.98 gCO₂e/MJ, triggering a compliance deficit of over 314 tonnes CO₂e. To neutralize this, the shipping company would need to source external surplus, incurring €62,891 for the surplus purchase assuming a surplus price of 200 €/t CO₂e.

Combined with ETS costs of 759,400 €, this strategy results in an OPEX of 3.20 million €. That’s slightly lower than either Bio30 strategy, saving about 32,000 € compared to the Bio30 (HFO) scenario and about 53,000 € compared to the Bio30 (MGO) scenario. At the same time, pooling comes without the hassle of fuel availability and bunkering, especially when using a solution such as BetterSea's FuelEU Pooling Marketplace.

Case Summary:

• FuelEU GHG Intensity: 90.98 g CO₂e/MJ

• Compliance Balance: -314.45 t CO₂e

• Surplus Required: 314.45 t CO₂e

• FuelEU Penalty: 0 €

• Surplus Purchase: 62,891 €

• EU ETS Cost: 759,399.67 €

• Total OPEX: 3,196,786.04 €

Conclusion

This case study demonstrates that small variations in blend selection can create meaningful cost differences. Choosing between MGO- or HFO-based Bio30 blends requires more than just checking price per tonne, it’s about understanding energy content, emissions, and system compatibility.

Shipping companies should approach FuelEU compliance as a cost optimisation exercise. BetterSea’s platform helps shipping companies weigh these options, test different blend scenarios, and find the most effective compliance pathway across a fleet or individual vessel.

If your team is evaluating compliance pathways for 2025 and beyond, we’d be happy to support you with the tools and insights to stay ahead of cost and regulation.

BetterSea's FuelEU Maritime Platform helps you in finding the best compliance pathway considering all complexities of FuelEU. Utilising alternative fuels is too tricky or the fuels are simply not available in the ports you sail to? Check out our FuelEU Pooling Marketplace for effortless and fast compliance. It provides you with a fast, streamlined, end-to-end process covering all potential compliance options, including external pooling and surplus trading. Book a demo below and get access afterwards!

Book a Demo

Stay tuned for more insights on navigating maritime decarbonisation compliance in our upcoming newsletters. If you have any questions or need further guidance, feel free to reach out!

Best regards,

The BetterSea Team

Contact Us: info@bettersea.tech

Follow Us on LinkedIn!

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter below!