Per-fuel well-to-wake intensity: HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil)

Background: HVO as drop-in renewable diesel

HVO sits at the intersection of two mature industries. The hydrotreatment of distillate hydrocarbons under high-pressure hydrogen has been a workhorse refinery operation since the 1950s, originally developed for sulphur and nitrogen removal in fossil distillates. Vegetable oil has been pressed and processed at industrial scale for centuries. The renewable-diesel value chain bolts the two together: a triglyceride feedstock (vegetable oil, used cooking oil, animal fat, or tall oil from pulp residue) is fed into a hydroprocessing reactor at temperatures of approximately 300 to 400 degrees Celsius and pressures of 30 to 100 bar in a hydrogen atmosphere, the oxygen is removed as water and carbon dioxide, the long carbon chains are cracked and isomerised, and the output is a paraffinic distillate that meets the same diesel-engine combustion envelope as fossil MGO.

The drop-in characteristic is what makes HVO operationally important. A vessel built for marine gas oil or for low-sulphur fuel oil running on a distillate change-over chain can take an HVO bunker without modification to the fuel-treatment system, the engine control software, the injection equipment, or the safety case. Cetane number, lower heating value, density at 15 degrees Celsius, kinematic viscosity, lubricity, and cold-flow behaviour are all within the ISO 8217 DMA and DMB envelopes (with caveats on density, addressed below). The shipowner therefore captures the GHG benefit without a capital expenditure on the asset. That is a structurally different proposition from methanol as a marine fuel, ammonia as a marine fuel, hydrogen, or even bio-LNG, each of which requires a purpose-built fuel system or, in the bio-LNG case, an LNG-ready vessel.

The drop-in characteristic also distinguishes HVO from FAME biodiesel, treated separately in the per-fuel FAME article. FAME is a fatty-acid methyl ester produced by transesterification with methanol; HVO is a paraffinic alkane produced by hydrotreatment with hydrogen. The two molecules behave very differently in cold weather, in long-term storage, and in fuel-system metallurgy, and the ISO 8217 limits on FAME content in marine distillate (currently capped, with FAME-blended grades carrying explicit DF flags in the 2024 revision) reflect those concerns. HVO carries no equivalent cap because it is hydrocarbon, not ester.

The constraint on HVO uptake is supply. Global renewable-diesel production capacity reached approximately 16 million tonnes per year in 2025, dominated by the United States Gulf Coast (Diamond Green Diesel, REG, Phillips 66 Rodeo conversion), Singapore (Neste), Rotterdam (Neste), and a growing European base (ENI Venice and Gela, TotalEnergies La Mede, Repsol Cartagena). The marine sector competes for that volume against road transport, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) co-production, and gas-grid blending obligations. Liquefaction is not required because HVO is liquid at ambient temperature, but bunker logistics are constrained because most renewable-diesel volume is contracted to road and aviation buyers, and only a fraction physically reaches a marine bunker barge. The market price reflects scarcity, with HVO typically trading at a 200 to 500 USD per tonne premium to fossil MGO depending on the certification chain and the contract horizon.

HVO production pathway: hydrotreating

Hydrotreatment of triglyceride feedstock proceeds in three sequential reactions under hydrogen pressure over a sulphided cobalt-molybdenum or nickel-molybdenum catalyst, then over a noble-metal isomerisation catalyst. The chemistry is well-characterised and forms the technical foundation of every commercial HVO process.

Step 1: Pretreatment. Crude vegetable oil, used cooking oil, or animal fat carries phosphorus, alkali metals, and free fatty acids that poison hydrotreatment catalysts. Pretreatment removes these contaminants by degumming (phosphoric acid wash), bleaching (clay adsorption), and acid neutralisation. Used cooking oil pretreatment is more demanding than virgin vegetable oil because of higher free fatty acid content, water content, and solid contamination.

Step 2: Hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) and hydrodecarboxylation (HDC). The pretreated feedstock enters the hydrotreatment reactor at approximately 300 to 400 degrees Celsius and 30 to 100 bar of hydrogen pressure. The catalyst removes the oxygen atoms from the triglyceride molecules through two parallel reactions: hydrodeoxygenation removes oxygen as water (H2O) and consumes more hydrogen but preserves carbon yield, while hydrodecarboxylation removes oxygen as carbon dioxide (CO2) and consumes less hydrogen but loses one carbon atom per fatty acid chain. The relative balance of HDO and HDC determines hydrogen consumption, CO2 yield, and carbon efficiency. Modern catalysts favour HDO at the expense of higher hydrogen consumption.

Step 3: Isomerisation. The hydrotreatment output is a straight-chain paraffin (n-paraffin) with poor cold-flow properties. Isomerisation over a noble-metal catalyst (typically platinum on a zeolite support) converts a fraction of the n-paraffins into branched iso-paraffins, lowering the cloud point and pour point to commercial diesel specification. The isomerisation severity is tuned to the target market: arctic-grade HVO requires more severe isomerisation than tropical-grade.

The output is a clear, water-white paraffinic distillate with a cetane number of 70 to 90 (against approximately 45 to 55 for fossil MGO), essentially zero sulphur (<5 ppm), zero aromatics, and a lower heating value of approximately 44 MJ/kg. The density is approximately 0.770 to 0.790 t/m3, lower than fossil MGO at approximately 0.835 to 0.870 t/m3, and this density delta is the principal compatibility issue with ISO 8217 DMA and DMB engine envelopes.

The hydrogen consumption per tonne of HVO is approximately 30 to 50 kilograms, depending on feedstock saturation and process severity. The hydrogen source is a major lever on the WtT intensity: hydrogen produced from steam methane reforming (the global default) carries roughly 9 to 10 kgCO2eq/kgH2, while hydrogen produced from electrolysis of renewable electricity carries close to zero. The MEPC.391(82) Annex 1 default values for HVO assume conventional steam-methane-reformed hydrogen unless the producer documents an alternative hydrogen pathway under the certification chain.

EN 15940 paraffinic-diesel specification

The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) published EN 15940 as the specification for paraffinic diesel produced from synthesis or hydrotreatment. The standard was first issued in 2016 and has been revised twice. EN 15940 is the regulatory hook for HVO use in road transport and provides the technical reference for marine HVO bunker specifications, although marine fuel is governed by ISO 8217 rather than EN 15940 directly.

EN 15940 sets limits on cetane number (minimum 51, with HVO typically delivering 70 to 90), density at 15 degrees Celsius (765 to 800 kg/m3, lower than EN 590 fossil diesel which is 820 to 845 kg/m3), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content (maximum 1.1 percent by mass, with HVO typically below 0.1 percent), sulphur (maximum 5 ppm), oxidation stability (minimum 25 hours by EN 15751), lubricity (maximum 460 micrometre wear scar diameter at 60 degrees Celsius by ISO 12156-1), and cold-flow properties graded by climate class.

The density range is the principal point of attention. EN 15940 paraffinic diesel is approximately 5 to 8 percent less dense than fossil EN 590 diesel. For volumetric fuel-injection systems calibrated on EN 590 density, the lower HVO density delivers slightly less mass and therefore slightly less energy per stroke, requiring electronic compensation for full power output. Modern common-rail injection systems with closed-loop fuel-mass control compensate automatically; older mechanical injection systems may show a small power derate at high HVO blend ratios. For marine engines, the ISO 8217 DMA grade allows densities down to 800 kg/m3 (HVO at 770 to 790 kg/m3 is below this) and DMB allows down to 800 kg/m3 as well, so a 100 percent HVO bunker on a DMA-only certified engine may technically fall outside the ISO 8217 envelope on density alone, even if it meets every other parameter.

Engine OEMs (MAN Energy Solutions, WinGD, Wartsila, Caterpillar Marine, Yanmar, Hyundai Heavy Industries) have issued service letters confirming that 100 percent HVO meeting EN 15940 is compatible with their two-stroke and four-stroke marine engines, with the density caveat handled by either a service-letter exemption or by blending HVO with fossil MGO to bring the blend density into the ISO 8217 envelope. Most marine HVO bunkers in 2024 to 2025 have been delivered as B30 to B50 blends (30 to 50 percent HVO in fossil MGO) precisely to manage the density issue, with 100 percent HVO bunkers reserved for specific demonstration voyages.

Class A vs Class B HVO

EN 15940 distinguishes two classes of paraffinic diesel based on density:

Class A paraffinic diesel has a density at 15 degrees Celsius of 765 to 800 kg/m3. This is the standard-grade HVO produced by Neste, ENI, TotalEnergies, Diamond Green Diesel, and most commercial producers. It is the highest-volume grade and the lowest-cost grade. Most marine HVO bunkers are Class A.

Class B paraffinic diesel has a density at 15 degrees Celsius of 800 to 810 kg/m3. This is a denser grade produced by limited-severity isomerisation or by specific catalyst tuning, designed to fit the EN 590 density envelope without blending. Class B is more expensive than Class A because the production yield is lower, and is consequently a much smaller fraction of total HVO output.

For the marine bunker market, Class A is the relevant grade in 2025 and the density issue is handled either by blending or by service-letter exemption. Class B HVO in marine bunkers is rare and is not a routine commercial offering.

The two classes have identical lifecycle GHG intensity for any given feedstock and process pathway. The class distinction is a fuel-system compatibility tool, not a sustainability tool.

ISO 8217 DMA/DMB compatibility

Marine fuels are governed by ISO 8217, with the 2024 revision (ISO 8217:2024) tightening certain limits and introducing biofuel-blend designators. The two distillate grades relevant for HVO bunkers are DMA and DMB, both of which are paraffinic distillate envelopes designed for marine compression-ignition engines.

DMA (Distillate Marine A) is the lighter grade, with viscosity at 40 degrees Celsius of 2.0 to 6.0 cSt, density at 15 degrees Celsius of maximum 890 kg/m3 with a minimum-density caveat triggered by injection-pump calibration concerns (typical operating range 800 to 870 kg/m3), sulphur capped at 1.0 percent by mass (with the 0.1 percent cap applying inside Emission Control Areas under MARPOL Annex VI), flash point minimum 60 degrees Celsius, pour point maximum 0 degrees Celsius (winter) or 6 degrees Celsius (summer). HVO meets every DMA parameter except potentially the minimum density at the lower end of the EN 15940 Class A range.

DMB (Distillate Marine B) is the heavier-leaning distillate grade, with viscosity at 40 degrees Celsius of 2.0 to 11.0 cSt, density at 15 degrees Celsius of maximum 900 kg/m3, sulphur capped at 1.5 percent by mass (or 0.1 percent inside ECAs), flash point minimum 60 degrees Celsius, pour point maximum 0 degrees Celsius (winter) or 6 degrees Celsius (summer). DMB allows for a small fraction of residual fuel-oil contamination from common bunker-barge tankage. HVO blended into DMB is unproblematic on density grounds because the blended density typically lands inside the envelope.

The 2024 revision of ISO 8217 introduced biofuel-blend designators (DMA-LF, DMB-LF for low FAME, and DMA-DF, DMB-DF for FAME-containing distillate blends) to handle the rising prevalence of FAME blending in marine bunkers. HVO does not require a biofuel-blend designator because HVO is hydrocarbon and is chemically a paraffinic distillate, indistinguishable from fossil paraffinic distillate at the molecular level outside of stable carbon-isotope ratio testing. ISO 8217 DMA and DMB grades therefore accommodate HVO without an explicit amendment.

The IMO has not issued a technical amendment to ISO 8217 for HVO and is unlikely to need one. The fuel falls within the existing distillate envelopes for any practical blend ratio and the OEM service-letter regime handles the density edge case at 100 percent HVO.

Producer technologies: Neste NEXBTL, UOP Renewable, ENI EcoFining

The HVO production landscape is dominated by four licensed process technologies and a small number of in-house variants. Each technology achieves the same basic chemistry (HDO, HDC, isomerisation) but differs in catalyst formulation, reactor configuration, hydrogen integration, and feedstock flexibility.

Neste NEXBTL is the original commercial HVO process, developed by Neste (then Neste Oil) in the early 2000s and first commercialised at the Porvoo refinery in Finland in 2007. NEXBTL is a multi-feedstock process capable of running on virgin vegetable oil, used cooking oil, animal fat, fish fat, and tall oil. The Neste production network includes Porvoo, Rotterdam (operational since 2011), and Singapore (operational since 2010 with major capacity expansion in 2023), giving a combined capacity of approximately 5.5 million tonnes per year as of 2025. Neste is the global market leader in renewable diesel and is the principal supplier to the European marine bunker market under brand names such as Neste MY Renewable Diesel.

Honeywell UOP Renewable (also known as UOP Ecofining when co-developed with ENI in the 2000s, with the IP later split between the two licensors) is a licensable hydroprocessing scheme used by Diamond Green Diesel, Phillips 66 Rodeo, Marathon Martinez, and several other US-based producers. UOP also licenses the closely related Renewable Jet Fuel process for SAF production, allowing producers to swing between renewable diesel and SAF using the same hydrotreatment block.

ENI EcoFining is the ENI-branded variant of the original UOP-ENI co-development. EcoFining is the technology behind the Venice and Gela bio-refineries in Italy, which together provide approximately 1 million tonnes per year of renewable-diesel capacity to the European market. The Gela refinery was converted from a fossil refinery to a bio-refinery in 2019 and represents one of the largest greenfield renewable-diesel investments in southern Europe.

TotalEnergies Hydroflex is the technology used at the La Mede bio-refinery in southern France, converted from fossil refining in 2019. La Mede produces approximately 500,000 tonnes per year of renewable diesel and SAF. Hydroflex is differentiated by its co-processing capability, allowing renewable feedstock to be blended with fossil distillate inside the same hydrotreatment train.

In-house and other variants: Repsol operates a renewable-diesel capacity at the Cartagena refinery in Spain using a proprietary hydrotreatment scheme; Preem operates renewable-diesel and tall-oil-derived diesel capacity at Goteborg in Sweden using ExxonMobil licensed technology; Valero (parent of Diamond Green Diesel) and Marathon use UOP variants. The technology landscape is competitive and the licensed technologies converge on similar product specification.

LCV, density, carbon, sulphur

The fuel parameters of commercial HVO are tightly clustered across producers because all the licensed processes target the same EN 15940 envelope. The numbers below are typical Class A HVO values:

Lower heating value (LHV): approximately 44.0 MJ/kg, slightly higher than fossil MGO at approximately 42.7 MJ/kg. The higher LHV per unit mass reflects the higher hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of paraffinic distillate compared to a fossil diesel that contains aromatics. On a volumetric basis (MJ/litre), HVO is slightly lower than fossil MGO because the lower density more than offsets the higher mass-specific LHV; HVO at 44.0 MJ/kg and 0.780 t/m3 delivers approximately 34.3 MJ/litre, against fossil MGO at 42.7 MJ/kg and 0.850 t/m3 delivering approximately 36.3 MJ/litre. Volumetric fuel consumption of an engine on 100 percent HVO is therefore slightly higher than on fossil MGO at the same power output.

Density at 15 degrees Celsius: approximately 0.770 to 0.790 t/m3 for Class A, against fossil MGO at 0.835 to 0.870 t/m3. The density delta is the source of the ISO 8217 DMA edge case discussed above and the source of the slight volumetric fuel-consumption increase.

Cetane number: approximately 70 to 90, against fossil MGO at 45 to 55. The high cetane number gives HVO excellent ignition quality, low ignition delay, and clean combustion at light load. This is one of the underrated operational benefits of HVO: smoke and particulate matter at light load are noticeably lower than on fossil MGO.

Sulphur: less than 5 ppm (0.0005 percent by mass), well below the 0.1 percent ECA cap and the 0.5 percent global cap. HVO is intrinsically ultra-low-sulphur because the hydrotreatment process saturates and removes sulphur compounds, and the feedstock (vegetable oil, used cooking oil, animal fat) carries essentially no native sulphur.

Aromatic content: less than 1 percent by mass, against fossil MGO at 15 to 25 percent. The absence of aromatics reduces particulate-matter emissions in combustion and reduces the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) load in the exhaust.

Cloud point and pour point: tunable by isomerisation severity, with arctic-grade HVO available down to minus 32 degrees Celsius cloud point. Most marine HVO is summer-grade (cloud point 0 to minus 5 degrees Celsius).

Carbon content: approximately 84.5 percent by mass, against fossil MGO at 86.5 percent. The lower carbon content reflects the higher hydrogen content. The TtW combustion CO2 factor for HVO under MEPC.391(82) is approximately 3.10 gCO2 per gram of fuel, against fossil MGO at approximately 3.20 gCO2 per gram, but for sustainably certified HVO this combustion CO2 is biogenic and counts as zero on the WtW balance.

MEPC.391(82) Annex 1 default WtW per feedstock

The WtT intensity of HVO under MEPC.391(82) Annex 1 is feedstock-dependent and the spread is wide. The Annex 1 default values, in approximate ranges drawn from the LCA Guidelines and the underlying RED III default tables, are:

Used cooking oil (UCO): approximately 7 to 14 gCO2eq/MJ WtT. UCO is a residue feedstock under RED III Annex IX-B and carries the lowest WtT intensity because the counterfactual is disposal or low-value use, and only collection and pretreatment energy is allocated to the feedstock side. UCO HVO is the lowest-intensity grade in the commercial market.

Animal fat (Category 1, 2, and 3 rendered fats): approximately 10 to 18 gCO2eq/MJ WtT. Animal fats are residue feedstocks under Annex IX-B for Category 1 and 2 (not suitable for human or animal feed) and the WtT intensity is similar to UCO with slightly higher rendering and transport energy. Category 3 fats carry slightly higher WtT because of the food-feed counterfactual.

Tall oil from pulp residue: approximately 12 to 20 gCO2eq/MJ WtT. Tall oil is a residue from kraft pulp production, qualifies under RED III Annex IX-A as an advanced feedstock, and carries low WtT because the upstream emissions are allocated to the pulp product.

Soybean oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower oil (first-generation crop): approximately 40 to 55 gCO2eq/MJ WtT, with palm oil at the higher end. Crop-based HVO carries fertiliser, diesel, and land-use emissions on the upstream side, and is subject to the RED III food and feed crop cap of 7 percent of the renewable transport target by member state. The Indonesian and Malaysian palm-oil pathways are the highest-intensity HVO routes and are explicitly excluded from RED III after a phase-out scheduled for 2030.

Camelina, carinata, and other novel oilseeds (cover crops): approximately 20 to 35 gCO2eq/MJ WtT. Cover crops grown between main rotations carry lower WtT than dedicated crops because the agricultural emissions are partly allocated to the main crop, but they are not always classified as Annex IX-A and the RED III treatment is case-specific.

The WtW total adds the TtW combustion CO2 (zero for biogenic carbon under sustainable certification) and any methane or N2O slip from the engine (negligible for diesel-cycle compression-ignition engines on HVO). The total WtW intensity therefore equals the WtT intensity for HVO in the MEPC.391(82) framework, which gives the headline range of 7 to 25 gCO2eq/MJ for waste-feedstock HVO and 40 to 55 gCO2eq/MJ for first-generation crop-based HVO.

The default values are the fallback when actual values cannot be verified through certification. In practice, HVO entering the marine bunker pool is sold against an ISCC EU or 2BSvs Proof of Sustainability (PoS) document that names a specific feedstock and a specific WtT figure, often lower than the default. The certification chain is the operative document for FuelEU compliance.

FuelEU Annex II treatment: IX-A vs IX-B caps

FuelEU Maritime imports the RED III sustainability framework and applies it to the marine bunker pool. Annex II of FuelEU (Regulation (EU) 2023/1805) sets default WtW emission factors that mirror the MEPC.391(82) values, and the eligibility under FuelEU follows the RED III Annex IX feedstock taxonomy.

Annex IX-A is the advanced-biofuel list and includes agricultural residues, forestry residues, tall oil, sewage sludge, manure (for biomethane), straw, and other lignocellulosic residue. Annex IX-A feedstocks are doubly counted towards the RED III renewable transport target (each MJ of energy counts as 2 MJ for the obligation), which raises their economic value to the obligated parties but does not change their WtT intensity for FuelEU calculation.

Annex IX-B is the residue-feedstock list and includes used cooking oil and animal fats from Category 1 and 2 rendering. Annex IX-B feedstocks are doubly counted but capped at 1.7 percent of the national transport energy contribution under RED III, on the rationale that the global supply of UCO and animal fat is limited and that uncapped use would create market distortions and import-substitution issues. The 1.7 percent cap applies at the EU member-state level and is allocated to obligated parties; the cap does not directly cap marine bunker volumes, but it does cap the volume of UCO and animal-fat HVO that can count towards a member state’s transport renewable target. For FuelEU compliance, UCO and animal-fat HVO are eligible without the cap because FuelEU is a separate obligation, but the underlying feedstock-supply economics propagate through the bunker pricing.

Food and feed crops (soy, rape, sunflower, palm) are not on either Annex IX list and are subject to the RED III 7 percent cap on food and feed crop biofuels in the transport target. Crop-based HVO is consequently a small fraction of the European bunker pool, and the bulk of marine HVO in EU ports is UCO, animal fat, or other Annex IX feedstock.

The certification chain therefore matters in two ways for FuelEU. First, the feedstock label on the Proof of Sustainability determines whether the bunker is eligible at all (food-and-feed crops above the 7 percent national cap may be excluded from the FuelEU credit for some operators). Second, the WtT figure on the Proof of Sustainability is the number that goes into the FuelEU GHG intensity calculation, and a low-intensity certificate is worth more in the FuelEU compliance balance.

RED III sustainability: 7 percent food/feed cap

The Renewable Energy Directive III (Directive (EU) 2023/2413) sets the binding sustainability framework for biofuels in the European Union and is imported by reference into FuelEU Maritime. The key sustainability instruments relevant to HVO are:

80 percent GHG saving threshold for new installations from 2026 onwards (and 65 percent for installations operational before 2021). The threshold is calculated against the fossil fuel comparator of 94 gCO2eq/MJ for transport fuels. An HVO pathway with WtT of 18 gCO2eq/MJ delivers a saving of (94 minus 18) divided by 94 equals 81 percent, which clears the threshold. An HVO pathway with WtT of 35 gCO2eq/MJ delivers 63 percent saving, which does not clear the 80 percent threshold for new installations and is consequently not RED III eligible from new plants.

7 percent food and feed crop cap on the contribution of crop-based biofuels to the renewable transport target. The cap was introduced in RED II and tightened in RED III. The intent is to limit the indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk associated with first-generation biofuels and to redirect feedstock demand towards waste and residue streams. For HVO, this means crop-based feedstocks (soy, rape, sunflower, and a phased-out palm oil) are limited as a fraction of the total renewable transport energy and therefore as a fraction of the marine bunker pool, propagating through the price signal.

Palm oil phase-out by 2030. RED III explicitly phases out palm-oil-derived biofuels from the renewable transport target by 2030 because of the high indirect land-use change risk and deforestation footprint. Palm-derived HVO is consequently a shrinking share of the European bunker pool and is largely absent from marine HVO offerings in 2026.

Sustainability criteria on land use, soil organic carbon, biodiversity, and water use. The criteria are operationalised through the certification schemes (ISCC EU, 2BSvs, RedCert) which audit feedstock origin, traceability, and GHG calculation. A bunker without certification cannot claim RED III sustainability and therefore cannot reduce the FuelEU GHG intensity below the fossil default.

The RED III framework is the regulatory backbone of every marine HVO bunker in the EU. Operators handling HVO outside the EU (Singapore, Fujairah, US Gulf, Yokohama) face a more fragmented certification landscape, and the FuelEU rules require that bunkers loaded outside the EU and burned on intra-EU voyages still carry RED III certification or an equivalent verification.

Mass Balance certification: ISCC EU, 2BSvs, RedCert

The traceability chain for HVO between the feedstock origin and the marine bunker manifold is operationalised through mass-balance certification. Mass balance is a chain-of-custody method that allows physically commingled material (e.g. fossil and renewable distillate sharing a pipeline or storage tank) to be allocated to specific buyers based on documented input and output volumes, provided the total renewable allocation does not exceed the total renewable input. The method is essential to the renewable-diesel value chain because HVO is chemically indistinguishable from fossil paraffinic distillate and physical segregation throughout the supply chain would be operationally infeasible.

Three certification schemes dominate the marine HVO market.

ISCC EU (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification, EU scheme) is the largest voluntary certification scheme recognised by the European Commission for RED III compliance. ISCC EU certifies feedstock collectors, processors, traders, and final fuel suppliers, with each link in the chain holding an ISCC EU certificate and issuing Sustainability Declarations with each consignment. ISCC has issued more than 50,000 certificates globally and is the de facto standard for marine HVO bunker documentation. The Proof of Sustainability (PoS) document accompanying each marine HVO bunker carries the feedstock identity, the WtT GHG intensity, the certificate numbers of every upstream operator, and the mass-balance allocation.

2BSvs (Biomass Biofuels Sustainability voluntary scheme) is a French-origin certification scheme also recognised by the European Commission, with significant share in the European biofuel market. 2BSvs is operationally similar to ISCC EU and is largely interchangeable for marine bunker purposes, although ISCC EU has higher market penetration on the marine side.

RedCert is a German-origin certification scheme primarily focused on the German biofuel market but recognised across the EU. RedCert is the market leader in biomethane certification (treated in the bio-LNG article) and has a smaller share of HVO certification.

The marine bunker buyer receives a Bunker Delivery Note (BDN) plus a Proof of Sustainability or equivalent ISCC EU document, and forwards both to the verifier under FuelEU Maritime to establish the eligible WtT figure. An HVO bunker without a PoS document is treated under FuelEU as fossil distillate at the default fossil intensity, eliminating the GHG benefit. The certification chain is therefore not a paperwork formality; it is the direct lever on FuelEU compliance value.

The 2024 to 2025 period saw several enforcement actions against fraudulent ISCC EU certificates in adjacent biofuel chains (notably allegations of falsified UCO origin from China). The marine HVO market response has been increased counterparty due diligence, second-party audits commissioned by large buyers (Maersk, CMA CGM), and a growing role for blockchain-based traceability pilots.

Supply chain: Neste, Diamond Green, Ecocrudo, World Energy

The global HVO production landscape is concentrated and the marine bunker share is a small fraction of total output. The principal suppliers and capacities relevant to the marine market in 2025:

Neste is the global market leader, with approximately 5.5 million tonnes per year of capacity across Porvoo (Finland), Rotterdam (Netherlands), and Singapore. The Singapore expansion completed in 2023 brought Singapore capacity to approximately 2.6 million tonnes per year, making it the largest single renewable-diesel facility in the world. Neste is the principal HVO supplier to the European marine bunker market and a major supplier to Singapore-based marine bunkering. Neste sells under the Neste MY Renewable Diesel brand and offers UCO-only, animal-fat-only, and mixed-feedstock grades with associated certification documentation.

Diamond Green Diesel is a joint venture between Valero Energy and Darling Ingredients, with capacity of approximately 1.2 billion gallons per year (about 4 million tonnes per year) across St. Charles (Louisiana), Norco (Louisiana), and Port Arthur (Texas). DGD is the largest US-based renewable-diesel producer and is feedstock-flexible across UCO, animal fat (Darling is a major rendering operator), distillers corn oil, and refined vegetable oil. DGD output goes mostly to US road transport under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard and California Low Carbon Fuel Standard, with a growing marine bunker share.

ENI operates approximately 1 million tonnes per year of renewable-diesel capacity at the Venice (Porto Marghera) and Gela bio-refineries, both in Italy. ENI is the leading Italian and southern-European supplier and has been active in marine HVO bunkering at Italian and Mediterranean ports.

TotalEnergies operates approximately 500,000 tonnes per year of renewable-diesel and SAF co-production at La Mede (France), with additional capacity at Grandpuits (under construction). TotalEnergies has been active in marine HVO bunkering at French Mediterranean ports.

Repsol operates renewable-diesel capacity at the Cartagena refinery in Spain, with plans for capacity expansion at Cartagena and at the Bilbao site. Repsol is a growing supplier to the Spanish and western Mediterranean marine bunker market.

World Energy operates approximately 350,000 tonnes per year of renewable-diesel and SAF production at Paramount (California), the original commercial renewable-diesel plant in the US (commissioned 2010). World Energy is also a major SAF supplier to the airline industry.

Ecocrudo (also marketed as Argentina Renewable Crude) is an emerging South American producer of renewable-diesel feedstock from Argentine soy and tallow, with hydrotreatment outsourced to refining partners. Ecocrudo is a feedstock supplier rather than a finished-fuel supplier, and the Argentine soy pathway is subject to the RED III food-and-feed crop cap and to ILUC scrutiny.

Honeywell UOP and licensees: a long tail of regional producers (Phillips 66, Marathon, Cenovus, Imperial Oil, several Asian refiners) operates UOP-licensed renewable-diesel capacity, totalling several million tonnes per year of additional global capacity.

The marine bunker share of total HVO output is variously estimated at 2 to 5 percent in 2025, with the balance going to road transport (the dominant outlet under the EU RED III road-fuel obligation and the US Renewable Fuel Standard) and to SAF co-production for aviation. The marine share is growing as FuelEU Maritime takes effect from 2025, but remains constrained by total HVO supply.

Commercial pricing and HVO premium

HVO trades at a substantial premium to fossil MGO. The premium reflects the higher feedstock cost (UCO, animal fat, vegetable oil are more expensive per tonne than crude oil distillate), the hydrotreatment processing cost (hydrogen consumption and energy intensity), the certification overhead, and the supply scarcity. Typical 2025 marine HVO bunker prices (delivered, 100 percent HVO) at major European ports were in the range of USD 1,400 to 1,900 per tonne, against fossil VLSFO at approximately USD 600 to 700 per tonne and fossil MGO at approximately USD 750 to 900 per tonne. The HVO premium is therefore approximately USD 600 to 1,200 per tonne, with the lower end for B30 to B50 blends at the heavier UCO-derived end of the certification spectrum, and the higher end for 100 percent UCO-only HVO at the lowest WtT intensity.

The premium can be partly offset by the FuelEU compliance value. A 2026 FuelEU non-compliance penalty rate of approximately EUR 2,400 per tonne of fuel-energy equivalent at the binding intensity gap implies a marginal compliance value for low-intensity HVO that can reach the same order of magnitude as the bunker premium. Operators size this trade-off with the /calculators/fueleu-ghg-intensity tool and the /calculators/fueleu-rfnbo-multiplier check.

A second offset is the California LCFS and EU ETS value chains, which recognise renewable-diesel use through credit mechanisms (LCFS) or surrender obligations (EU ETS). The exact monetisation depends on the operator’s regulatory exposure and trading-account access.

The HVO premium is expected to compress through 2027 to 2030 as global hydrotreatment capacity expands (Phillips 66, Cenovus, multiple Asian operators are commissioning new capacity through 2027) and as feedstock collection chains for UCO and animal fat deepen. The structural floor on HVO pricing is the feedstock cost, which is itself constrained by the limited global supply of waste fats and oils. The forecast consensus places long-run HVO at a 100 to 300 USD per tonne premium to fossil MGO, with the residual premium reflecting the irreducible feedstock and processing cost differential.

Relationship to FAME

HVO and FAME (fatty acid methyl ester biodiesel, treated separately in /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-fame) are both biofuels derived from triglyceride feedstocks and both can use the same UCO or vegetable oil as feedstock. The chemistry, the product specification, and the marine compatibility are very different.

FAME chemistry: transesterification of triglyceride with methanol over a base catalyst (typically sodium methoxide), producing fatty acid methyl ester and glycerol byproduct. The product is an ester (R-CO-O-CH3) rather than a hydrocarbon, contains oxygen as part of the ester functional group, and has a lower heating value of approximately 37 to 38 MJ/kg.

HVO chemistry: hydrotreatment of triglyceride with hydrogen over a metal catalyst, producing paraffinic hydrocarbon and water and CO2 byproducts. The product is a pure hydrocarbon (R-H), contains no oxygen, and has a lower heating value of approximately 44 MJ/kg.

Marine compatibility: FAME is hygroscopic, has limited oxidation stability (typical 6 hours by EN 15751), promotes microbial growth in storage tanks, attacks certain elastomer seals, and has poor cold-flow properties. ISO 8217:2024 caps FAME content in distillate marine grades and introduced explicit DF designators for FAME-blended grades. HVO has none of these issues: it is non-hygroscopic, has 25-plus hours oxidation stability by EN 15751, does not promote microbial growth, is compatible with all elastomers used in marine fuel systems, and has tunable cold-flow properties.

Lifecycle GHG: WtT intensities are similar for the same feedstock (UCO-FAME and UCO-HVO both fall in the 7 to 14 gCO2eq/MJ range), with FAME marginally higher because of methanol consumption in transesterification (typical 100 kg methanol per tonne FAME). The TtW combustion CO2 is biogenic for both and counts as zero on the WtW balance for sustainably certified feedstock.

Pricing: FAME typically trades at a smaller premium to fossil MGO than HVO does, reflecting lower processing cost and a more mature production base. The trade-off is FAME’s marine compatibility limitations, which constrain the blend ratio in distillate bunkers.

The two fuels are complementary rather than competing. FAME at low blend ratios (B5 to B10) is the established renewable component in the marine distillate pool. HVO at higher blend ratios (B30 to 100 percent) is the technical drop-in option for shipowners pursuing aggressive decarbonisation without engine modification.

Relationship to e-fuels

HVO is a biofuel: the carbon comes from photosynthesis within the recent biological cycle (months for waste oil, years for crop oil, decades at most for tall oil). Renewable diesel is a category that also includes synthetic paraffinic diesel produced by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of synthesis gas derived from electrolytic hydrogen and captured CO2. Fischer-Tropsch e-diesel is treated separately in the forthcoming per-fuel-wtw-efuel article and falls under the renewable fuel of non-biological origin (RFNBO) category, not the biofuel category.

The two fuels can be marketed under similar branding and may even coexist in the same bunker stream in the late 2020s as e-fuel capacity comes online. The regulatory treatment is materially different.

Bio-HVO: subject to RED III sustainability criteria, RED III food-and-feed cap, RED III Annex IX feedstock taxonomy, ISCC EU mass-balance certification. Eligible under FuelEU Annex II at the certified WtT intensity. Not eligible for the FuelEU RFNBO multiplier (treated in /wiki/fueleu-rfnbo-multiplier).

E-diesel (Fischer-Tropsch RFNBO): subject to RED III renewable electricity additionality, geographic correlation, and temporal correlation rules. Eligible under FuelEU Annex II at the certified WtT intensity. Eligible for the FuelEU RFNBO multiplier of 2 in the 2025 to 2033 calculation period, which doubles the apparent energy contribution to the FuelEU compliance balance.

The RFNBO multiplier is the principal regulatory differentiator. A vessel buying e-diesel at a higher bunker price than HVO can recover part or all of the premium through the doubled FuelEU credit; the same vessel buying HVO does not access this multiplier. Operators evaluating long-run renewable-diesel sourcing should distinguish bio-HVO from e-diesel in the procurement specification and align the certification chain accordingly.

Drop-in compatibility considerations

The principal operational appeal of HVO is the drop-in characteristic: zero engine modification, zero new safety case, zero IGF Code involvement (HVO is a distillate liquid at ambient temperature and falls under the conventional liquid-fuel safety regime). The compatibility envelope nonetheless has edge cases that operators should verify before committing to high HVO blend ratios.

Density: 100 percent HVO at 770 to 790 kg/m3 is below the ISO 8217 DMA minimum density floor that some engine OEMs apply. Most OEM service letters resolve this by either (a) issuing an exemption for verified EN 15940 Class A HVO, (b) recommending a B70 maximum blend with fossil MGO to keep the blend density above 800 kg/m3, or (c) accepting 100 percent HVO with a documented power derate. Operators should obtain the engine-specific service letter before bunkering 100 percent HVO.

Lubricity: paraffinic distillate has lower native lubricity than aromatic-rich fossil diesel. EN 15940 Class A HVO is dosed with a lubricity additive at the producer to meet the maximum 460 micrometre wear scar diameter requirement. Operators should verify that the bunker is dosed to specification, particularly for HVO sourced outside the major-producer chain.

Seal compatibility: most modern marine fuel-system seals (fluoroelastomer FKM, hydrogenated nitrile HNBR) are compatible with 100 percent HVO. Older nitrile (NBR) seals can swell or harden on aromatic-free fuel and may benefit from inspection or replacement before extended high-HVO operation. Engine OEMs typically issue a seal-compatibility checklist with the HVO service letter.

Cold flow: arctic-grade HVO is available, but most marine HVO is summer-grade with cloud points of 0 to minus 5 degrees Celsius. Vessels operating in cold regions should specify the grade explicitly in the procurement specification.

Storage stability: HVO has excellent oxidation stability (greater than 25 hours by EN 15751) and unlimited storage life under typical marine bunker conditions, in contrast to FAME which degrades within months. Storage compatibility with residual fuel (HFO, VLSFO) in the same tank is good but not unlimited; mixing should be avoided in critical storage.

Boiler compatibility: marine boilers fired on distillate run on HVO without modification, with the slight power-density reduction (approximately 6 percent volumetric LHV reduction) absorbed by the burner control loop. Inert-gas generators, oily-water separator burners, and incinerators are also compatible.

No IMO MEPC technical amendment is required for HVO use in ISO 8217 DMA and DMB engines. The fuel falls within existing distillate envelopes, the IGF Code does not apply (HVO is not a low-flashpoint fuel), and MARPOL Annex VI compliance is established by the standard sulphur certification.

2022-2025 marine HVO pilots (Maersk, cruise sector, blending)

The marine HVO uptake accelerated through 2022 to 2025 with a series of demonstration voyages, commercial bunker contracts, and fleet trials.

Maersk Boldness, May 2022: A.P. Moller Maersk completed the first commercial 100 percent biofuel container voyage on the Maersk Boldness, an 8,500 TEU container vessel, using 4,300 tonnes of bunker on a Singapore to Rotterdam transit. The bunker was a mixed-source ISCC EU-certified distillate biofuel, with HVO and FAME components. Maersk has subsequently bunkered approximately 100,000 tonnes of certified biofuel per year on its container fleet, with HVO comprising a growing share.

Mediterranean cruise sector, 2023 to 2025: MSC Cruises, Costa Cruises, and Royal Caribbean conducted HVO bunker trials at Italian, Spanish, and French Mediterranean ports through 2023 to 2025. Several cruise lines completed 100 percent HVO transits between Mediterranean ports and reported full operational compatibility with no engine modification. The cruise sector is a high-visibility user of marine HVO because of the consumer-facing emissions narrative.

CMB.TECH and Bound4Blue HVO blending pilots, 2024: CMB.TECH (the technology arm of the CMB Group, focused on hydrogen and ammonia) ran HVO blending trials on its bulker and tanker fleet through 2024, with B30 and B50 blends as transitional fuels alongside the longer-term hydrogen and ammonia retrofit programme. Bound4Blue (a wind-assist propulsion technology supplier) operated HVO blending trials on demonstrator vessels.

CMA CGM, 2023 onwards: CMA CGM contracted multi-year HVO and FAME supply from major European producers, with HVO blends in routine use on the European-Asia container service. CMA CGM is a leading container-line buyer of marine biofuel.

Hapag-Lloyd, 2024 onwards: Hapag-Lloyd offered customer-facing biofuel bookings on container shipments under a Ship Green programme, with HVO and FAME as the underlying renewable components. The programme uses mass-balance allocation to apportion the GHG benefit to the participating customers’ shipments.

Stena Line, 2023 to 2025: Stena Line operated HVO blends on Baltic and North Sea ferry services, with several routes running on 100 percent HVO during demonstration periods. Stena is a leading ferry-sector adopter.

ONE (Ocean Network Express), 2024 onwards: ONE offered customer-facing biofuel bookings under a similar mass-balance programme.

The cumulative marine HVO bunker volume in 2025 is variously estimated at 1.5 to 2 million tonnes globally, against a global marine bunker market of approximately 230 million tonnes, indicating a renewable-diesel share of well below 1 percent. The growth trajectory is steep but the absolute volume remains constrained by total HVO supply and by the road and aviation competition.

Formula, assumptions, and limits

Formula

The well-to-wake CO2-equivalent intensity of a sustainably certified HVO bunker is the sum of two material components:

For waste-derived HVO, biogenic CO2 is treated as zero in the lifecycle accounting:

The blend formula for fossil MGO mixed with HVO at energy fraction $x_{\text{HVO}}$:

where $\text{EF}_{\text{WtW,MGO}}$ is the fossil MGO well-to-wake intensity (approximately 91 to 92 gCO2eq/MJ under MEPC.391(82) Annex 1, treated in /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-vlsfo-mgo), and $\text{EF}_{\text{WtW,HVO}}$ is the certified HVO WtW intensity from the Proof of Sustainability.

Derivation

The WtW formulation follows the IMO LCA Guidelines, treated in /wiki/marine-gfs-methodology, which decompose the lifecycle into a WtT stage covering all energy and material flows up to the bunker manifold, and a TtW stage covering combustion and slip from the moment the fuel enters the engine.

The WtT term for HVO aggregates feedstock collection (UCO collection from food-service operators, animal-fat rendering, vegetable oil pressing, tall oil separation), feedstock transport (truck or marine transport to the hydrotreatment plant), pretreatment energy (degumming, bleaching, acid neutralisation), hydrotreatment energy (process heat, electricity, hydrogen production), isomerisation energy (additional process heat and noble-metal catalyst regeneration), and any pipeline or truck transport between the bio-refinery and the marine bunker barge. The hydrogen consumption is the largest single contributor to WtT in most pathways, with steam methane reforming hydrogen at approximately 9 to 10 kgCO2eq/kgH2 dominating the process emissions for most commercial plants. Producers using electrolytic hydrogen (Neste Singapore is partly transitioning to renewable-electricity hydrogen) can deliver lower WtT figures.

The TtW combustion CO2 term is set to zero because the carbon in HVO is biogenic. The carbon was photosynthesised within the relevant biological timescale (months for waste oil, growing-season for crop oil, decades at most for tall oil from kraft pulp), and the IMO and EU frameworks treat that carbon as recycled. The combustion CO2 is still physically present in the funnel exhaust, but it does not appear on the GHG balance. The biogenic-zero treatment is the foundational lifecycle benefit and applies only to sustainably certified feedstock.

The methane-slip term is negligible for HVO because compression-ignition diesel engines do not slip methane on a paraffinic distillate fuel. The N2O contribution is also negligible at the engine and is not separately tabulated in the MEPC.391(82) HVO defaults.

Assumptions

1. Biogenic CO2 is zero on the WtW balance. This is the foundational assumption of the HVO benefit and is shared by IMO MEPC.391(82), FuelEU Annex II, and RED III. It rests on the premise that biogenic carbon is recycled within the relevant biological timescale.
2. Mass-balance certification is honest. The framework relies on accredited certification bodies (ISCC EU, 2BSvs, RedCert) to verify feedstock origin, conversion factors, and chain of custody. Fraudulent or weakly audited certificates undermine the entire benefit.
3. Hydrogen pathway matches the certificate. The default WtT values assume conventional steam-methane-reformed hydrogen unless the producer documents an electrolytic or other low-carbon hydrogen source under the certification chain. Operators relying on a low WtT figure should verify the hydrogen source.
4. Engine combustion emissions are equivalent to fossil MGO. Compression-ignition diesel engines deliver near-identical TtW combustion factors on HVO and on fossil MGO; the biogenic carbon treatment is the only reason the WtW differs.
5. Bunker delivered matches the certified specification. Mass-balance allocation requires that the physical bunker volume not exceed the documented renewable-input volume into the supplying terminal. Routine spot-check verification (carbon-isotope ratio testing) is available but rarely deployed.

Worked example

A 50,000 dwt product tanker fitted with a 6-cylinder MAN B&W S50ME-C two-stroke main engine takes a 500-tonne 100 percent HVO bunker in Rotterdam. The bunker is certified ISCC EU mass-balance, sourced from used cooking oil collected in northwestern Europe, with an Annex 1 default WtT of 14 gCO2eq/MJ for the UCO-HVO pathway (a typical value with conventional hydrogen). The host engine is a conventional diesel-cycle compression-ignition unit with no methane slip on distillate fuel.

WtT term: $14$ gCO2eq/MJ TtW combustion CO2 term: $0$ gCO2eq/MJ (biogenic, sustainably certified) TtW slip term: $0$ gCO2eq/MJ (negligible for diesel-cycle distillate) WtW total: $14 + 0 + 0 = 14$ gCO2eq/MJ

Compared with the same engine on fossil MGO at WtW of 91 gCO2eq/MJ, the HVO bunker delivers a reduction of approximately 77 gCO2eq/MJ, an 85 percent improvement.

For 500 tonnes at an LHV of 44 MJ/kg, the energy is $500 \cdot 1000 \cdot 44 = 22$ TJ, and the GHG saved on a WtW basis is $77 \cdot 22 \cdot 10^{12} \cdot 10^{-9} \cdot 10^{-3} = 1{,}694$ tonnes CO2eq versus fossil MGO. At a fossil-MGO bunker price of USD 800/t and an HVO bunker price of USD 1,650/t, the green premium for the 500-tonne lift is USD 425,000, which equates to approximately USD 251 per tonne of CO2eq avoided. That figure is comparable to the 2026 FuelEU non-compliance penalty rate.

Edge cases and limits

Crop-feedstock HVO above the RED III threshold. Pathways with WtT above 35 gCO2eq/MJ may not clear the RED III 80 percent saving threshold for new installations and may not deliver the full FuelEU compliance value. A certificate naming soy, rape, sunflower, or palm should be tested against the RED III thresholds before reliance, and the food-and-feed crop cap should be checked against the operator’s national allocation.

Density edge case at 100 percent HVO. Some ISO 8217 DMA-only certified engines apply a minimum density of 800 kg/m3, below which the OEM has not warranted operation. EN 15940 Class A HVO at 770 to 790 kg/m3 is below this floor. Operators should obtain the engine-specific service letter or blend HVO with fossil MGO to bring the blend density into the warranty envelope.

Non-EU bunker ports without ISCC EU coverage. A vessel taking bunkers in Fujairah, Yokohama, or other ports outside the European mass-balance area may receive an HVO product that is physically renewable but not RED III certified. Under FuelEU rules, the bunker is treated at the fossil default unless an equivalent verification is provided. Operators should verify the certification chain at the procurement stage, not at the bunker stage.

UCO origin scrutiny. Several enforcement actions have targeted falsified UCO origin documentation, particularly in chains importing UCO from East Asia. Buyers should commission second-party audits or rely only on producers with documented UCO traceability programmes.

SAF and road-transport competition for feedstock. Renewable-diesel feedstock (UCO, animal fat, vegetable oil) is in short supply and the marine sector competes against road transport (under the EU RED III road obligation and the US Renewable Fuel Standard) and against SAF co-production. The marine bunker share of total HVO output is constrained by this competition and the bunker price reflects it.

Allocation between HVO and SAF in co-production refineries. Bio-refineries that co-produce HVO and SAF allocate feedstock and emissions between the two products. The allocation method (mass, energy, economic) affects the WtT figure assigned to each product and is set by the certification scheme. Operators should verify the allocation method in the Proof of Sustainability.

Hydrogen source and electrification. Producers transitioning to electrolytic hydrogen can deliver substantially lower WtT figures. Neste Singapore and ENI Venice have announced renewable-hydrogen integration plans with target WtT reductions of 2 to 5 gCO2eq/MJ. Operators should track producer-specific hydrogen pathways for the lowest-intensity HVO procurement.

Regulatory basis

• IMO MEPC.391(82): Annex 1 default emission factors for hydrotreated renewable-diesel pathways, biogenic CO2 treatment, methane-slip defaults (zero for diesel-cycle distillate)
• FuelEU Maritime (Regulation (EU) 2023/1805): Annex II default values for hydrotreated renewable diesel, mass-balance verification requirements, RED III feedstock taxonomy import
• RED III (Directive (EU) 2023/2413): Sustainability and GHG-saving criteria, Annex IX-A and IX-B feedstock lists, food-and-feed crop cap of 7 percent, 80 percent GHG saving threshold for new installations from 2026, palm oil phase-out by 2030
• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996: Mass-balance verification rules, certification scheme recognition criteria
• EN 15940: Paraffinic diesel specification, Class A and Class B density limits
• ISO 8217:2024: Marine fuel specification, DMA and DMB distillate envelopes, biofuel-blend designators
• MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14: Sulphur content limits (0.5 percent global, 0.1 percent ECA), met by HVO at less than 5 ppm
• ISCC EU, 2BSvs, RedCert: Voluntary certification schemes recognised by the European Commission for RED III compliance verification

Common errors

1. Counting TtW combustion CO2. A common error is treating the HVO combustion CO2 as non-zero. Under MEPC.391(82) and FuelEU Annex II for sustainably certified feedstock it is zero (biogenic).
2. Treating HVO as RFNBO-eligible. HVO is a biofuel, not a renewable fuel of non-biological origin. The FuelEU RFNBO multiplier in /wiki/fueleu-rfnbo-multiplier does not apply.
3. Confusing book-and-claim with mass balance. Marine bunker certificates must come through a mass-balance chain to qualify under FuelEU. Book-and-claim certificates from disconnected jurisdictions do not currently qualify.
4. Ignoring the density edge case. Operators bunkering 100 percent EN 15940 Class A HVO on DMA-only certified engines should obtain the OEM service letter rather than assuming the fuel is automatically within the warranty envelope.
5. Confusing HVO with FAME. HVO is a paraffinic hydrocarbon; FAME is an oxygenated ester. The two have different ISO 8217 limits, different storage stability, and different elastomer compatibility. The cross-link to /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-fame clarifies the distinction.
6. Treating crop-based HVO as Annex IX-A. Soy, rape, sunflower, and palm are food-and-feed crops subject to the 7 percent cap. Only UCO, animal fat from Category 1 and 2 rendering, tall oil, and similar wastes and residues are Annex IX.
7. Assuming the WtT default applies regardless of certificate. The Annex 1 defaults are fallbacks for uncertified or undocumented bunkers. Operators relying on the certified WtT should verify that the certificate names a feedstock and a value, not just a marketing label.

See also

• /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-vlsfo-mgo
• /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-hfo
• /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-lpg
• /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-bio-lng
• /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-lng-otto-diesel
• /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-methanol-grades
• /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-ammonia-grades
• /wiki/per-fuel-wtw-hydrogen
• /wiki/marine-gfs-methodology
• /wiki/fueleu-intensity-formula-breakdown
• /wiki/fueleu-rfnbo-multiplier
• /wiki/imo-net-zero-framework
• /calculators/fuel-wtw-hvo
• /calculators/fuel-wtw-blend
• /calculators/fuel-wtw-fame
• /calculators/fuel-wtw-mgo
• /calculators/fueleu-ghg-intensity
• /calculators/gfi-attained

Related calculators

• e-Diesel / FT e-Fuel - Well-to-Wake
• VLSFO - Well-to-Wake
• LPG - Well-to-Wake
• LNG - Well-to-Wake by engine pathway
• HFO - Well-to-Wake
• Methanol - Well-to-Wake by pathway
• Hydrogen - Well-to-Wake by pathway
• Bio-LNG - Well-to-Wake

Related formulas

• fuel wtw hvo
• fuel wtw vlsfo
• fuel wtw nuclear
• fuel wtw mgo
• fuel wtw methanol
• fuel wtw lpg
• fuel wtw lng
• fuel wtw hydrogen