Russia and Canada have notified the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that they will not join the voluntary ban on the use and transport of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the Arctic. According to analysts, Canada's decision is likely temporary until the formal adoption of the relevant agreement, while Russia intends to use heavy fuel oil for at least another five years.
"The refusal to join the ban shows how painful the transition remains for parts of the fleet. However, this is temporary: environmental requirements will only become stricter, and sooner or later shipping companies will have to adapt," comments Viktor Genkulov, a marine engineer and ship mechanic with the international company SIFSERVICE L.T.D. Viktor works on the operation and modernization of marine power plants, including projects to reduce emissions and transition vessels to more environmentally friendly fuels. This year, he joined the Expert Commission of the "Ukrainian Quality Mark. Best Products and Services of the Year" Award, evaluating companies in marine engineering, ship systems repair and maintenance, power plants, and yachts.
In this interview, the expert discusses current environmental challenges in shipping, the transition from heavy fuel oil (HFO) to cleaner alternatives, and how these measures help maintain shipping sustainability even during wartime.
— Viktor, you've worked extensively with heavy fuel oil and know how to handle it safely. What makes HFO dangerous, and why are we moving away from it now?
Heavy fuel oil, or HFO, is a high-sulfur residual oil. It's cheap, which is why it's been commonly used on most large commercial vessels. The fuel contains high amounts of sulfur and, when burned, releases sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and large quantities of soot—black carbon. This carbon settles on snow and ice, accelerating their melting, which is especially dangerous for the Arctic. Additionally, in case of an HFO spill, it's virtually impossible to remove from the water surface—in cold conditions, the fuel becomes thick and viscous, creating a serious threat to ecosystems.
More environmentally friendly alternatives include low-emission fuels like liquefied natural gas or marine diesel fuel with low sulfur content. They significantly reduce emissions while maintaining vessel efficiency.
— Recent events show that countries are still resisting the HFO ban in the Arctic. What's actually required in practice for this transition to become widespread and safe?
First and foremost, the vessels themselves and the infrastructure need to be ready. For many ships, especially older ones, this means dry dock repairs, replacement or modernization of equipment, recertification, and bringing all systems into compliance with international requirements.
Installing new equipment takes time and additional resources—not just for installation, but also for maintenance, crew training, and scheduled operations. Moreover, the entire process is accompanied by strict inspections and extensive paperwork confirming the vessel's safety and compliance with national and international requirements.
So in practice, the main challenges arise in the engineering side and project management. Funding, of course, also plays a role, but it usually follows from technical and organizational tasks: modernization, certification, and operational control.
— You work on dry dock repairs, engine, and machinery restoration. Which systems on a vessel typically need to be modernized when switching to alternative fuel?
In practice, the main propulsion plant and diesel generators most often require modernization, because they're the ones burning fuel and incurring daily costs. Fuel systems are also changed or adapted: pipelines, pumps, fuel preparation and filtration systems, separators. All of this requires structural changes, additional safety systems, and sometimes backup mechanisms.
If we're talking about more innovative solutions, like sails or wind devices, this adds weight and load to the vessel, requiring lightweight materials and additional maintenance. Such technologies are usually cost-effective on large ships where the additional weight isn't critical.
— Another IMO environmental initiative—limiting sulfur content in marine fuel to 0.5%—came into effect in 2020. After that, many vessels began installing scrubbers—exhaust gas cleaning devices. You've also been involved in their installation: what are the main advantages of these systems, and is it really feasible to install them on older vessels?
A scrubber reduces sulfur dioxide emissions and other harmful substances, helping the vessel comply with modern environmental standards. It's a very good alternative for vessels that, for technical or economic reasons, can't yet switch to alternative fuel, since taking the entire such fleet out of operation all at once is impossible.
Scrubbers come in different types—open-loop and closed-loop, hybrid, inline, and external—which makes it possible to select a solution for a specific vessel and its technical characteristics. As for older vessels, scrubber installation is possible, but you need to adapt the fuel system, pipelines, pumps, fuel filtration and separation systems, and provide additional safety measures. It's quite a labor-intensive process that requires time and, most importantly, investment. On average, retrofitting one vessel costs several hundred thousand to a million dollars, depending on the vessel's size and type.
— Many worry about the high cost of transitioning to cleaner fuel. How quickly do such measures pay off in practice? Are there examples where investments in environmental sustainability actually paid for themselves?
Payback depends on the type of vessel, scale of modernization, and chosen technologies. Simple measures, such as installing monitoring instruments and enhanced fuel consumption control, usually show results immediately—savings are noticeable from the first voyages.
More serious investments, such as installing scrubbers, dual-fuel engines, or systems like sails and solar panels, require time and capital investment, but such modernizations gradually pay for themselves through fuel savings and reduced emissions penalties.
Even relatively small reductions in fuel consumption through scrubber installation or hybrid systems eventually produce a noticeable economic effect: on large vessels and long voyages, these savings accumulate and allow investments to be recouped within several years. In the long term, such solutions simultaneously reduce emissions and increase overall vessel operational efficiency.
— You serve on the Commission of the National "Ukrainian Quality Mark" Award and evaluate colleagues' projects, checking engineering safety, compliance with international standards, and other criteria. What solutions in ship operations do you consider most promising for reliability and environmental sustainability?
I like initiatives using digital systems on vessels. For example, modern solutions allow automatic monitoring of fuel levels, including heavy HFO. Previously, a mechanic had to walk around each tank and check everything manually; now sensors collect data in real time and display it on screens in the engine room or navigation bridge. If something goes wrong, an alarm sounds and the crew can quickly take action. This helps prevent fuel overflow, detect leaks or hull damage in time—especially important when working with HFO—and significantly reduces the risk of errors due to fatigue or inattention.
Of course, mechanics continue to monitor equipment, but the workload becomes more manageable, and the response to unforeseen situations is faster and more accurate, which directly improves the safety and environmental performance of vessel operations. I think in the future, such digital systems will be integrated into all vessels.
— Viktor, you're one of the few Ukrainian marine engineers who've managed to continue working on international contracts during the war. What do you think is especially important today for marine engineers and mechanics so that international shipping remains environmentally sustainable even during a crisis?
First of all, it's important not to treat environmental concerns as a secondary issue. It's engineers and mechanics who are responsible for how a vessel consumes fuel, how cleaning systems work, and how promptly leaks and deviations are detected. Even simple things—accurate fuel accounting, functioning sensors, proper operation of monitoring systems—already reduce environmental risks.
The war has shown that any savings on monitoring and maintenance can lead to serious consequences—both environmental and technical. Therefore, the role of engineers today is to maintain professional standards, implement digital solutions, keep environmental systems operational, and prepare for a gradual transition to cleaner technologies. I'm confident this transition is inevitable: even those countries that haven't yet joined the heavy fuel ban and other environmental initiatives will eventually be forced to take this step—under pressure from technology, economics, and responsibility for the future of the maritime industry.
