CO2 SHIPPING

Design, safety, and regulatory considerations

for an emerging fleet

W H ITE PAP E R
CO2 shipping

Contents
Foreword 3
1. General 4
2. Regulatory framework 7
3. Maritime transport of CO2 8
4. Design aspects for CO2 carriers 10
4.1 Safety principles for cargo containment systems 10
4.2 Ship and cargo tank arrangements 11
4.3 Cargo tank design 13
4.4 Materials and welding 14
5. Cargo handling system 16
5.1 Additional fuel system and flammable fuel tanks on deck 16
5.2 Control of cargo pressure and temperature 16
5.3 Solidification of CO2 16
5.4 Dual cargo possibilities 18
5.5 CO2 reconditioning 19
6. Offshore discharge and injection 20
6.1 Direct injection from shuttle tanker 20
6.2 Injection via a permanently positioned bottom-fixed injection installation 21
6.3 Injection via a permanently located floating injection unit without storage 21
6.4 Injection via permanently located floating injection unit with integral storage 22
7. CO2 composition 23
7.1 Cross-cutting issue along the whole value chain 23
7.2 Practical experience with impurities 23
7.3 Typical impurities and effects 23
7.4 Risks associated with impurities in shipping operations 25
7.5 CO2 specifications 26
Appendix I – Class notations 27
Appendix II – Guidance on the relevant requirements for LCO2 carriers 31

Project team Disclaimer

Independence, impartiality, and advisory limitations
This document contains content provided by DNV. Please note the following:
Ethical safeguards
Authors
To maintain integrity and impartiality essential to its third-party roles, DNV performs
initial conflict o
­ f-interest assessments before engaging in advisory services.
Mathias Sørhaug, Robert Østraat Kjelstadli,
Priority of roles
Gabriele Notaro, Håvard Nyseth, Magnus Lindgren, This report is generated by DNV in its advisory capacity, subsequent to con-
Chi-wan Bang, Pål Einar Spilleth, Conn Fagan flict-of-interest assessments. It is separate from DNV’s responsibilities as a third-
party assurance provider. Where overlap exists, assurance activities conducted by
DNV will be independent and take precedence over the advisory services rendered.
Future assurance limitation
The content in this document will not obligate or influence DNV’s independent and
impartial judgement in any future third-party assurance activities with DNV.
Compliance review
DNV’s compliance with ethical and industry standards in the separation of DNV’s
roles is subject to periodic external reviews.

2
 CO2 shipping

Foreword

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is rapidly emerging in close collaboration with other stakeholders along the
as a critical enabler of global decarbonization. DNV’s chain. The most cost-efficient solution for shipping may
recent Energy Transition Outlook (ETO) estimates that 210 not necessarily be optimal for the full chain. Technically
million tonnes per annum of CO2 will be captured by 2030 there are many cross-cutting issues, such as CO2 com-
and 1.3 gigatonnes per annum by 2050, equating to about position, which require close collaboration to develop
6% of global emissions. effective solutions.

As global CCS markets scale, the development of sup- This paper summarizes the collective experience DNV
porting infrastructure must keep pace. This includes a has gained through our engagement in CO2 shipping,
fleet of CO2 carriers, which can provide flexible, long- maritime CCS infrastructure, and general CCUS (carbon,
range transport of captured carbon across seas, as well as capture, utilization and storage) insights. The intention
other maritime infrastructure elements, such as floating is to provide the reader with insights into the critical ele-
collection and distribution hubs and offshore storage and ments in the design, construction and operation of CO2
injection units. carriers, and other maritime CCS infrastructure, based on
the experience we have today. It aims to provide stake-
CO2 shipping presents a major opportunity for the mari- holders with a knowledge foundation to navigate this
time industry, but success depends on the construction of evolving space.
infrastructure which is safe, functional, and cost-efficient,
enabling seamless downstream transportation from cap- As CCUS projects continue to mature, new insights will
ture to storage. emerge, and updates of this paper will be provided in the
future to ensure that the maritime industry continues to
DNV has been deeply involved in CCS and CO2 carri- receive independent, expert guidance on this topic.
ers for many years. This started with small-scale vessels
transporting CO2 for the food and beverage industry, and For deeper engagement, we welcome your enquiries and
more recently evolving into larger CO2 carriers for the look forward to supporting you on your journey.
Norwegian Longship project (Northern Lights) in Norway.

In recent years DNV has also been working closely with

the industry to support the development of CO2 carrier
designs, terminals, and offshore units, alongside the
creation of dedicated ship and offshore rules and class
notations, which are essential for ensuring safe, fit-for-pur- Mathias Sørhaug
pose solutions.
Business Development Director
The CCS value chain cannot be developed in silos. Mari- CO2 Shipping
time infrastructure and systems must be integrated into DNV
the broader CCS value chain and needs to be developed

3
CO2 shipping

1. General
With the need for global decarbonization intensifying, the As this new fleet of CO2 carriers develops, it is crucial that
role of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is becoming more the transport cost aligns and reinforces the economic
prominent. While many industries are already showing an case for CCS as a viable alternative to “business as usual”
interest in the technology, CCS is increasingly seen as a for emitters.
key decarbonization measure for hard-to-abate sectors like
steel and cement production, which have few other options. CO2 as cargo
The physical properties of CO2 differs from other liquefied
Maritime infrastructure and ship transport of CO2 will be gases transported at sea. Its density is higher than other
needed to effectively connect the capture facility to stor- commonly traded liquefied gases such as LPG and LNG.
age or utilization sites. While CO2 has been transported Moreover, CO2 cannot exist in liquid form at atmospheric
on board ships for many decades, mainly serving the food pressure. Pure CO2 has a triple point at 5.12 bara and
and beverage industry, this has been on smaller vessels -56.6°C, meaning it must be kept above this pressure and
with limited cargo capacities. within a specific temperature range to remain in its liquid
state. These factors create new challenges for the ship
Taking this to a larger scale will involve a major expan- and cargo tanks, and need to be taken into consideration
sion of the CO2 value chain, including the construction during design, construction, and operation.
of a fleet of much larger, and specialized vessels, which
will provide flexible transportation of CO2 globally. This
will also be complemented by the development of wider
maritime infrastructure, including floating terminals and
floating offshore units.   FIGURE 1-1
Phase diagram of pure CO2
Much of the technology and considerations related to this
technology used in marine transportation of CO2 will also 1 000
be applicable to offshore units storing and handling CO2.
Pressure (absolute MPa)

100
Current status and future market
The global fleet of large-scale CO2 carriers is still at an
early stage. 10

Critical point
31.1 ºC
By early 2025, two vessels dedicated for specific CCS 1 7.39 MPa

projects have been delivered and gone into operation, Triple point
-56.6 ºC
with two more under construction. More vessels are 0.52 MPa

expected to follow over the coming years. Ambient pressure

-78.5 ºC
0.1
-50 0 50 100 150
Future LCO2 carriers are expected to fall into three main Temperature (°C)
categories: short sea trading with vessels up to about
20k m3, offshore injection projects with vessels up to Solid (Dry ice) Supercritical
50k m3 (also involving dedicated offshore units), and Liquid Gas
vessels for long-haul trades typically for the Asia-Pacific
market transporting CO2 from Korea and Japan to per-
manent storage in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, and
Australia.

With the EU targeting an annual CO2 injection capacity of While the relevant pressure and temperature are separately
50 million tonnes by 2030, and other countries like Korea not extreme in any way, the combination poses challenges. In
and Japan also having ambitious targets for CCS, the addition, the high weight of the cargo leads to high dynamic
need for CO2 carriers and supporting maritime infrastruc- loads which create significant challenges in terms of fatigue.
ture is expected to grow significantly in only a few years.
CO2 from industrial emitters also contains different types
Looking forward, CCS capacity additions are projected of impurities, which can create a corrosive environment
to more than quadruple to 270 MtCO2/year over the next and influence the physical properties of CO2. A structured
five years, with even stronger growth expected through to approach to manage the risks associated with the CO2
2040 and 2050. This will need to be mirrored by growth in composition is a new but important element for this new
the CO2 carrier fleet. shipping segment.

4
 CO2 shipping

In general, LCO2 carrier cargo equipment and opera-

tions are comparable to those of standard LPG carriers.
However, LCO2 carriers or offshore units used for offshore
injection introduce additional equipment and operational
challenges that require particular considerations.

5
CO2 shipping

FIGURE 1-2
Locations where capture, transportation, and storage of CO2 is planned or already taking place

APAC
Typical CO2 ship trade:
• 500 – 4,000 nm (one way)
Trend shipping:
• Domestic and short sea 5k–20k MP
• Long voyage shipping: 30k–60k LP

EUROPE
Typical CO2 ship trade:
• 100 – 800 nm (one way)
Trend shipping:
• Shore to shore 3k–20k MP
• Shuttle tankers for offshore
injection 30k–50k LP

Project type Project status

Capture and transportation Storage In operation Planned

©DNV 2025 Source: afi.dnv.com; as of August 2025

6
 CO2 shipping

2. Regulatory framework

The design, construction, and operation of CO2 carriers ated with CO2 are considered less severe than other IGC
are governed by the International Code for Construction products which are categorized as flammable or toxic liq-
and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk uefied gases, such as LNG, LPG, and ammonia. Therefore,
(the IGC Code), which sets forth specific requirements some requirements for items such as ship survivability and
for CO2 transport. For floating terminals or permanently fire safety are more relaxed. It shall be noted that a revi-
installed offshore units, maritime regulations may be sion of the IGC Code is underway and that a reclassifica-
applicable; but the final jurisdiction lies with local author- tion of the product regarding toxicity may be introduced.
ities. However it is anticipated that relevant parts of the If so, additional requirements related to this hazard may be
IGC Code will be applied. introduced.

CO2 shipping, as an integral component of the CCUS value Specific requirements for liquid carbon dioxide are
chains, introduces unique regulatory considerations. Nota- defined in Ch. 17.21 and 17.22 of the IGC Code.
bly, CO2 designated for storage is subject to the London
Convention and London Protocol, which impose legal The International Association of Classification Societies
obligations that require thorough evaluation and active (IACS) Recommendations No. 174 – “Recommended pro-
engagement from the relevant national authorities. cedure for the finite element analysis to assess yielding,
buckling and fatigue strength of IGC Code type C tanks”
Within Europe, CO2 carriers utilized in CCS operations are provides general information and recommendations for
regulated under both the EU CCS Directive and the EU the design of the cargo tank structure.
ETS Directive, as they represent essential elements of the
CO2 transportation chain. All relevant content in the IGC Code and IACS documents
are incorporated into DNV’s Rules for Classification of Ships
According to the IGC Code, liquid CO2 is currently and Class Guidelines. Floating offshore installations will
regarded as an asphyxiant product. The hazards associ- refer to these Rules for equivalent systems found on ships.

7
CO2 shipping

3. Maritime transport of CO2

Even though maritime transport of CO2 has proven track Medium Pressure (MP) and High Pressure (HP) conditions are
records for more than 40 years, it has remained a niche explained in more detail in the following, although there are
segment exclusively serving and supplying the commercial no clear boundaries between the defined categories.
market in Northern Europe. The commercial CO2 cargo is
transported at pressures around 15 barg, which is similar For the CO2 carriers currently in service, the CO2 is stored
to standard conditions used for land-based applications. under MP conditions, typically at pressures around 15 to 18
barg, with corresponding temperatures between -26°C and
As maritime CO2 transport evolves from a small-scale com- -21°C. The design condition is typically 19 barg and -35°C.
mercial trade to be an integral part of the CO2 stream in This has earlier been recognized as conventional conditions
large-scale CCS projects, the storage and transport con- in line with land-based industry standards. Due to its proven
ditions of the cargo will need to be adapted to the design track record, a Medium Pressure concept has been selected
and operation of the whole value chain. This includes for the first CO2 carriers now being built for CCS service.
capturing, intermediate storage, transport, as well as the However, due to the relatively high pressure, the sizes of the
injection and permanent storage in the CO2 reservoir. This cargo tanks will eventually be limited by the required thick-
requires new solutions to the design, arrangement and ness of the tank shell and material strength. Considering the
cargo storage conditions of the CO2 carriers. cargo tank arrangement as well as the need to maintain con-
ventional hull proportions, this will in turn limit the maximum
CO2 can be stored and transported at different pressures cargo capacity of the ships.
and temperatures according to the vapour-liquid equilib-
rium curve for it. Figure 3-1 shows typical conditions for For larger-scale CCS projects, it is expected that the
maritime transport as well as for onshore and offshore future generations of CO2 carriers will need significantly
pipelines. To differentiate between concepts, three larger transport capacities, and ship designs based on
different categories of transport conditions have been both Low Pressure and High Pressure conditions are now
established for maritime transport. The Low Pressure (LP), being developed to meet future transport demands.

FIGURE 3-1
Vapour-liquid equilibrium (VLE) for pure CO² and representative ship transport conditions

CCS – REPRESENTATIVE TRANSPORT CONDITIONS

1,000

100
Pressure (BARA)

LIQUID PHASE

10 VLE pure CO2

Ship – Low Pressure
Ship – Medium Pressure
Ship – High Pressure
GAS PHASE Pipeline – Gasous phase
Pipeline – dense phase – onshore
Pipeline – dense phase – offshore
Injection well

1
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Temperature (˚C)
©DNV 2025

8
 CO2 shipping

Low Pressure concepts target operational pressures of For the High Pressure alternatives, as indicated in Figure
approximately 6 to 7 barg (7 to 8 bara) with correspond- 3-1, CO2 is stored at pressures above 35 barg, and at
ing design temperature down to 50 ºC to 55 ºC. The temperatures above 0°C. These solutions are typically
reduced pressure compared to the Medium Pressure based on compressed natural gas (CNG) containment
condition allows for increased cargo tank diameter while system principles, where the cargo is stored in racks of
maintaining the shell thickness, allowing a significant small-diameter pressure vessels or pipe segments which
scale-up of the ship designs. Besides the increased ship are arrayed into the cargo holds of the ship. The stacking
tank size and cargo volumes, a Low Pressure condition will of the cargo tanks may be adjusted and optimized to fit
also have technical and commercial implications for the the required cargo capacity. Potential benefits of High
entire transport value chain with regards to conditioning Pressure concepts lie in the reduced energy needed for
of product for transport, loading and offloading opera- liquefaction and conditioning of the CO2, both prior to
tions, and intermediate storage of product. loading onto the ship, and before injection to the reser-
voir. Hence, the conditioning of cargo prior to loading
The potential technical challenge with respect to the and prior to injection will be reduced with potential
lower pres­sure is the proximity to the triple point for CO2. savings in energy consumption. On the other hand, such
Commercially there may be challenges with respect to the concepts are expected to increase the technical and
increased cooling and heating efforts required at each regulatory complexity of the cargo containment and
end of the chain. At the triple point, the CO2 can be pres- handling system.
ent in either solid (dry ice), liquid and gas state. The solid
state is perceived as a challenge with regards to opera- As an alternative to the above, there are concepts involv-
bility within the value chain. There is currently no industry ing storage and transportation of solid CO2 at atmospheric
experience with large-scale, low-pressure CO2 ship trans- conditions and a temperature of -78°C. This form of trans-
port, but qualification activities have been carried out to port is currently not covered by international maritime
document the feasibility of such concepts1. regulations and will require further development.

9
CO2 shipping

4. Design aspects for CO2 carriers

barrier shall be capable of safely containing potential

4.1 Safety principles for cargo containment
leakages through the primary barrier and preventing low
systems temperature exposure of hull material. Tank types with
The IGC Code outlines the most common types of con- two full barriers are Independent Tanks Type A (commonly
tainment systems used for storing and transporting liq- used for LPG transport) and membrane-type LNG tanks.
uefied gases in bulk. Tank types defined in the IGC Code
are shown in Figure 4-1. These tank types are categorized However, the size and configuration or arrangement of
based on their particular design characteristics and safety the barrier may be reduced if it can be demonstrated
philosophy. All containment systems must, however, fulfil that the risk of singular failures are extremely low. In
fundamental safety functions to ensure safe containment this case, a potential crack shall remain stable and the
of the cargo under all design and operating conditions. In leakage shall be accurately predictable by suitable
addition to providing sufficient strength to withstand design calculation methods, such that any possible leakage flow
loads introduced by the cargo and dynamic motions, the can be safely handled by a reduced secondary barrier.
containment system safeguards the hull structure from low This principle is applied to IMO Independent Tank Type
temperature exposure as well as preventing cargo related B, where the integrity of the primary barrier is demon-
hazards such as fire and explosion, corrosion, and human strated through detailed design calculations and strict
exposure to the hazardous and potentially toxic gases. production requirements. It is important to note that the
tank types described above are assumed to operate at
A key safety principle in the IGC Code is the requirement near-atmospheric conditions and are therefore not suit-
for a full liquid-tight secondary barrier. The secondary able for CO2 service.

FIGURE 4-1
CO2 carrier tank types

Independent tanks

Type A Type B Type C Membrane tanks

Atmospheric pressure Atmospheric pressure Pressurized Atmospheric pressure
Full secondary barrier Partial secondary barrier No secondary barrier Full secondary barrier

Single
cylinder
Prismatic

Bi-lobe

Spherical

Tri-lobe

©DNV 2025

10
 CO2 shipping

In contrast, the IMO Independent Tank Type C is a particu- 4.2 Ship and cargo tank arrangements
lar type of pressure vessel with simple geometry and Given the similar storage conditions of CO2 and LPG, it is
robust design criteria. It includes strict requirements on natural for CO2 carrier designs to draw inspiration from
fatigue crack growth resistance, making it sufficiently conventional semi-refrigerated LPG carriers. However,
robust against crack growth, leakage, and potential struc- CO2 presents a unique combination of higher cargo den-
tural failure. As a result, Independent Tanks Type C do not sity, lower temperature, and elevated pressure conditions
require a secondary barrier. which introduce distinct design challenges and con-
straints that diverge from traditional gas carrier designs.
The IGC Code allows for cargo tank designs which deviate As a result, it may be appropriate to consider CO2 carriers
from the predefined tank types described above, pro- as a new category of gas carrier, requiring tailored design
vided that the safety principles and performance require- approaches and considerations.
ments are complied with. Cargo tanks of novel configura-
tion will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. LPG and LNG carriers are typically volume-critical vessels,
where maximizing cargo volume efficiency is key to opti-
Currently, IMO Independent Tanks Type C, including mizing ship design. For larger gas carriers, cargo tanks of
conventional circular-cylindrical tanks and bi-lobe tanks, bi-lobe or prismatic shape become gradually more attrac-
are the only readily available cargo containment systems tive to better utilize the available cargo hold space. In
suitable for CO2 transport. The optimal configuration and contrast, CO2 carriers face different challenges due to the
arrangement depend on the target transport capacity and higher density of the cargo combined with the elevated
ship design (see Section 4-2). Several novel pressure- design pressure. These vessels tend to be more dead-
vessel concepts deviating from the tank types defined by weight-critical rather than volume-critical. As a result, the
the IGC Code are however under development for CO2, ship dimensions may be driven more by the required ship
which may also trigger the development of alternative displacement than by the cargo’s storage volume require-
ship and cargo tank arrangements in the future. ments. At the same time, should the high design pressure
eventually limit the scalability and achievable size of the
The design requirements for IMO Independent Tanks cargo tanks, the displacement requirements may lead
Type C are based on pressure vessel standards, modified to increased ship dimensions with a cargo hold volume
to ensure very high resistance to fatigue loading. This potential which cannot be fully utilized. Consequently,
is critical to avoid structural failures and leakage from optimizing cargo volume through tank configurations
the tanks. The simple cylindrical shape of the cargo tank like bi-lobes or similar volume-efficient tank designs may
ensures that the loads are primarily carried as membrane become less relevant. Alternative tank configuration, such
stresses in the tank wall. This allows the tank’s strength as two-row cargo tank arrangements, may become more
to be documented with a high degree of confidence by attractive for the largest CO2 carriers.
simple formulas and methods.
The preferred ship and cargo tank arrangement will
The dimensioning criteria for the main tank shell are depend, among others, on the following parameters:
designed to keep the dynamic membrane stresses in
the shell sufficiently low to avoid the risk of surface flaws • Target transport volumes.
propagating through the shell thickness. • Ship dimensional constraints, including draft and ship
length.
However, the dimensioning criteria do not address poten- • Operational tank pressure and temperature ranges,
tially high dynamic stresses occurring at supports, attach- including means for pressure control.
ments, and other structural constraints or stress raisers. • Selection of cargo tank material and material/
Hence, to justify omitting the secondary barrier, extended production cost:
design documentation, including fatigue performance – Conventional materials may limit individual tank
verification, will be required for these areas to document volumes
compliance with the intention of the IGC Code. Normally – Alternative materials not covered by the IGC Code and
this is done by the use of state-of-the-art analysis methods. with enhanced mechanical properties may be required
to increase individual tank volumes. These materials
Bi-lobe tanks and tanks with more complex designs will are expected to undergo a qualification programme to
typically require extended design documentation beyond document performance for low-temperature service.
what is normally required for conventional cylin­drical
pressure-vessel designs.

11
CO2 shipping

The ship arrangement and size of the cargo tanks in terms Different concepts have been developed and presented
of diameter, length and configuration should also con- by the industry, originating from conventional LPG/LNG
sider the potential constraints related to the ship particu- carriers. Examples of different ship arrangements and
lars and the need to maintain hull proportions to ensure cargo tank configurations are shown in Figure 4-2.
sufficient strength, stability, maneuverability, and propul-
sion efficiency.

FIGURE 4-2

One-row cargo tank configuration

• Conventional arrangement for smaller

LPG carriers

• Used for existing CO2 carriers

• Limited cargo volume potential due to

ship and tank design constraints

©DNV 2025

FIGURE 4-3

Bi-lobe cargo tank configuration

• Conventional arrangement for larger

LPG carriers

• Potential for significant scaling of cargo

volume capacity (width and length)
compared to the single cylindrical cargo
tank configuration

• May not have the same potential to

utilize the cargo hold volume for CO2
due to increased hull deadweight
requirements
©DNV 2025 • More complex tank design

FIGURE 4-4

Two-row cargo tank configuration

• Unconventional arrangement for

LPG carriers, as larger vessels would
normally be equipped with cargo tanks
of Independent Type A

• Assuming that Type C is currently the

only option for CO2, this configuration
will provide the largest volume capacity

©DNV 2025

12
 CO2 shipping

4.3 Cargo tank design head is connected to the lobes through a Y-joint and
Considering the design and dimensioning of CO2 cargo carries membrane forces determined by the geometric
tanks, the key difference between liquid CO2 and the shape of the Y-joint.
other liquefied gases traditionally carried by ships lies
in the combined effects of higher cargo density, lower Conventional cylindrical tanks for LPG are traditionally
temperatures, and the elevated pressure requirement. designed and dimensioned by prescriptive methods out-
These factors, especially when linked with the ambition to lined by internationally recognized pressure-vessel design
increase tank and ship carrying capacity required for CCS codes. These methods, combined with design loads
value chains, place stringent requirements on the tank and acceptance criteria specified by the IGC Code, offer
materials, as well as on the specific design solutions for simple and reliable analytical formulations for cylindrical
the tank and its supporting structure. geometries and provide a solid basis for dimensioning of
the tank shell and the end caps. Similarly, the design of
Conventional cylindrical Type C tanks consist of a single attachments, openings, and reinforcements is governed
cylindrical body with end caps that are either hemispher- by prescriptive requirements.
ical, torispehrical, or elliptical in shape. The loads from
the cargo and internal vapour pressure are carried as This traditional design philosophy assumes tanks with
membrane forces distributed along the circumference of simple geometries and proven design solutions. Com-
the tank shell. The load from the cargo is further trans- bined with robust load and response formulations, it
ferred to the ship’s hull through internal support frames, provides sufficient documentation for structural safety of
which rest on two saddle supports located at each end the tank without the need for extensive analysis efforts.
of the tank cylinder. One saddle is fixed to prevent tank
movement, while the other allows for thermal expansion However, as cargo tank design evolves towards larger
and contraction along the tank’s length. Circumferential volumes and more complex geometries and design
vacuum rings at regular intervals may be fitted to prevent solutions, an extended use of finite element analysis
the tank shell from buckling. For longer tanks, swash (FEA) becomes necessary to ensure accurate and reliable
bulkheads can be added to reduce violent liquid motions dimensioning of the tank structure. While compliance
inside the tank. with the minimum design vapour-pressure requirements
keeps dynamic circumferential membrane stresses in the
Bi-lobe tanks are made up of two offset cylindrical lobes main tank shell within acceptable threshold values, the
divided by a common longitudinal bulkhead. The bulk- stresses in way of the supports are driven by the cargo

13
CO2 shipping

weight rather than the vapour pressure. In these areas, the C-Mn steels are specified for design temperatures down
implicit fatigue control mechanisms which are the basis to -55°C, while the remaining are suitable for lower tem-
for the Type C tanks may no longer be effective. perature cargoes such as ethylene and LNG.

In such cases, a fatigue assessment will be required to For each material type, the IGC Code gives requirements
demonstrate the tank’s resistance to fatigue. The analysis with respect to chemical composition, heat-treatment
may need to take into account the potential non-linear process, mechanical properties as well as to impact tests
behaviour of the tank/support interaction, including sup- at design temperature conditions.
port gap clearances and frictional slip. For these critical
regions, a minimum fatigue life of at least 10 times the Similarly to LPG carriers, the cargo tanks of the commercial
intended design life must be documented to justify omit- CO2 carriers in service are constructed using conventional
ting a secondary barrier, according to the IGC Code. C-Mn steel grades. These steels typically have a yield
strength of 320–360 MPa and are normally qualified for
For large cylindrical CO2 cargo tanks requiring separate design temperatures down to -55°C.
strength and fatigue assessments, critical areas include the
connections between the support rings and the tank shell However, the higher design pressure associated with the
as well as the doubler plates. Particular attention shall be carriage of CO2 in combination with large diameter tanks
given to the upper saddle horn where the termination of will require increased thicknesses of the shell and/or
the saddle can introduce high local stresses in the support possible use of alternative materials with higher mechan-
rings and adjacent shell. Meeting the stringent fatigue ical properties to limit the shell thickness. Ultimately, the
criteria in these areas may be challenging, and redesign or material grade and thickness will determine the maximum
structural reinforcements may be necessary. Ultimately, the achievable tank diameter, and hence the tank volume.
fatigue performance requirements may limit the maximum
achievable tank size for CO2 application. The use of higher strength materials comes with a cost of
further increased fatigue loading and often with greater
For bi-lobe tanks, the main part of the tank shell and end brittleness, and hence more challenging qualification of
caps are also dimensioned using prescriptive methods. fabrication methods. Acknowledging that the fracture
However, as the introduction of a longitudinal bulkhead toughness of C-Mn steel tends to decrease with decreasing
will affect the stiffness and the stress flow in the tank, par- temperature and with increasing thickness and material
ticular attention shall be given to the support rings, the strength, grades with minimum yield stress beyond 410
Y-joint connecting the longitudinal bulkhead to the tank MPa and thicknesses above 40 mm are not described by
shell, as well as the stiffening of the bulkhead structure. the IGC Code.
These areas must generally be verified through direct
calculations. However, the IGC Code opens up for acceptance of plates
with thickness above 40 mm, but additional toughness
Prismatic pressure vessels generally fall outside the defi- testing may be required. Material grades with yield stress
nition of Type C tanks. It may, however, be considered as exceeding 410 MPa must undergo dedicated qualifica-
a “containment system of novel configuration”, as defined tion activities to document adequate performance under
by the IGC Code. Nevertheless, they may be referred relevant service conditions. The qualification activities will
to as “Type-C equivalent” if detailed fatigue and crack normally involve a set of impact tests and CTOD (crack
propagation analysis demonstrate that the risk of struc- tip opening displacement) tests to document the fracture
tural failure and leakages through the primary barrier toughness of the base metal, heat-affected zones, and the
is sufficiently low, and that the conditions for omitting a welding consumables. The tests will need to be carried
secondary barrier are considered fulfilled. out for both as-welded and post-weld heat-treated con-
ditions. These activities are expected to require involve-
ment and cooperation between steel maker and tank
4.4 Materials and welding manufacturer.
The selection of materials for the cargo containment sys-
tem and cargo handling for LCO2 carriers is mainly driven Significant efforts have been made to qualify C-Mn
by the required design temperatures and strength prop- grades with yield stress up to 690 MPa for Medium and
erties. Material costs and tank manufacturing (i.e. welding Low Pressure conditions. However, challenges remain,
technology, need for post-weld heat treatment, etc.) are particularly in documenting sufficient fracture tough-
also elements to consider when selecting the material for ness for welded metal, including welding consumables
the containment system. for the lowest range of service temperatures. It has also
been observed that post-weld heat treatment may further
Materials that can be used for the construction of the reduce the fracture toughness. Steel and tank manufac-
cargo tanks are specified in the IGC Code. This includes turers are continuing to investigate the applicability of
fine-grained carbon-manganese (C-Mn) steels, nickel alloy alternative steel grades (yield strength >410 MPa), partic-
steels, certain austenitic stainless steels, and aluminium. ularly for the lowest design temperature ranges.

14
 CO2 shipping

According to the IGC Code, CO2 cargo tanks constructed Austenitic stainless steels, such as the commonly used
from C-Mn steels must be post-weld heat treated after the 304 and 316 grades, also have the necessary low-
welding of the tank is completed to reduce the residual temperature performance required for CO2. In addition,
stresses caused by welding. However, applying post-weld they provide improved corrosion resistance compared
heat treatment to large cargo tanks presents several prac- to conventional C-Mn grades. However, due to their
tical challenges, including limited availability of suitable relatively lower mechanical properties and expected
facilities and techniques. As noted above for extra-high- high cost, they are generally not considered an attractive
strength steel grades, post-weld heat treatment can option for larger-scale CO2 cargo tanks. These materials
further reduce the fracture toughness of the material. are however suitable for the CO2 cargo piping and han-
Therefore, it is important that the effects of post-weld dling systems.
heat treatment, and its implications for material selection,
tank design, and overall cost are carefully evaluated and As further elaborated in Chapter 7, the presence of water
properly handled in the design process. and certain other impurities in the stream can lead to a
corrosive environment, differentiating CO2 from other
Nickel alloy steels may be used as an alternative to high refrigerated gases. The materials typically used for refrig-
strength and extra-high strength C-Mn grades. These erated gases, as well as food grade CO2, are generally not
alloys provide the necessary low temperature perfor- regarded as corrosion resistant. Hence, the associated
mance required for CO2 and do not require post-weld risk related to corrosion may require mitigation by other
heat treatment. However, to match or exceed the mechan- means.
ical properties of C-Mn steels, nickel alloys with increased
nickel content are alternatives.

15
CO2 shipping

5. Cargo handling system

As mentioned in Chapter 4, IMO Independent Tank ments. There are ongoing discussions within the IMO to
Type C is currently considered to be the only viable ensure that fuel deck tanks will not impact the Ship type
option for storing CO2 on vessels due to the design and requirements, and in the meantime an alternative design
operational pressure requirements. Therefore, the cargo process with the flag can be imposed.
handling system for LCO2 carriers, in principle, adopts
the current practices of semi-refrigerated gas carrier
5.2 Control of cargo pressure and
designs, as for LPG carriers.
temperature
However, because of the physical properties of CO2, the As CO2 is not flammable, the traditional method of ther-
cargo handling system for LCO2 carriers has several dis- mal oxidation of boil-off gas (BOG) in boilers or engines
tinctive design features, and these challenges need to be is not a viable option for LCO2 carriers as a means of
taken into account during the design process. maintaining the cargo tank pressure and temperature
within design limits of the containment system and car-
riage requirements of the cargo. Consequently, pressure
5.1 Additional fuel system and flammable accumulation within the cargo tanks, particularly for Type
fuel tanks on deck C tank designs, becomes a primary means of managing
Unlike the new era of gas carriers which can utilize their cargo pressure and temperature, heavily relying on the
cargoes or boil-off gas as fuel (e.g. LNG, LPG, ethane inherent high-pressure capabilities and insulations ade-
and ammonia), CO2 cannot be consumed as fuel due to quate to provide design margins for targeted voyages. In
its non-flammable nature. Because of this, additional addition, the material selection of the cargo tank will have
fuel systems and tanks, which are distinct from the CO2 an impact on the potential temperature and pressure
cargo containment system, are required to be installed on ranges the vessel can operate under.
board for propulsion, with this having significant implica-
tions for the vessel's piping systems. As LCO2 carriers grow in size and are deployed on longer
voyages, and as the use of low-pressure cargo tanks
Conventional gas carriers are designed with dedicated becomes more common, integrating pressure accumula-
fuel gas supply systems (FGSS), which utilize either boil- tion and re-liquefaction systems will emerge as a viable
off gas (BOG) or cargo liquid with forced vaporization solution. This combination can help to meet higher capac-
directly from the cargo containment system. Hence, it nat- ity demands while enabling more precise control within
urally follows that the same cargo will likely be chosen as specific operating windows.
fuel to allow for easier adaptability and economic sense.
Given recent advancements in low-pressure cargo tank
In contrast, for LCO2 carriers – as with many other con- design – where operating pressures and temperatures in
ventional (non-gas carrier) vessels – the choice of fuel cargo tanks are close to the triple point – precise controls
depends on factors such as voyage profile, fuel availabil- of cargo systems have become essential. To prevent unin-
ity, and the relevant regulatory framework. tended phase changes, operators must rely on advanced
re-liquefaction systems that can tightly regulate both pres-
Once the most suitable fuel is chosen, the associated sure and temperature, as elaborated in more detail below.
piping including transfer, bunkering, storage, and engine
supply lines, needs to be entirely segregated from the 5.3 Solidification of CO2
CO2 cargo piping. Hence, due consideration should be The cargo handling system must be designed to maintain
taken to prevent any interference between the non-flam- the cargo in a pressurized condition to prevent the potential
mable CO2 cargo and highly flammable fuels. This should formation of solid-state CO2 which may cause obstruction of
ensure that the design adheres to stringent safety require- the cargo handling system and cool-down below safe work-
ments specific to fuel gas/liquid handling, and is com- ing temperatures for materials and equipment. Therefore,
pletely independent of the unique thermodynamic and liquefying CO2 requires pressurization, which means that
corrosive characteristics of the CO2 cargo. cargo piping and cargo tanks must always operate under
pressure to remain in liquid state.
Fuel products are flammable by nature and are usually
Ship Type 2G for LNG and 2G/2PG for LPG/ammonia, Solid CO2 forms when liquid CO2 undergoes a rapid pres-
whereas CO2 is categorized as Ship Type 3G. This has an sure loss, causing its temperature to fall below -79°C. This
impact on the design of the LCO2 carriers with regard to presents a significant risk, as the cold and solid CO2 can
stricter fuel tank locations and damage stability require- obstruct cargo handling systems.

16
 CO2 shipping

The risk of solidifying the CO2 also presents a unique bridge. The emergency shutdown system should then be
challenge to LCO2 carriers. If not properly managed, automatically initiated, closing all cargo manifold liquid
this can damage the cargo handling systems. Unlike in and vapour valves and stopping all cargo compressors
conventional gas carriers handling flammable and toxic and cargo pumps.
cargoes, LCO2 carriers must contend with this additional
operational complexity. 5.3.2 Cargo tank relief valve failure and vent system
In the opposite scenario to that described above – where
5.3.1 Uncontrolled pressure and temperature drop pressure in the cargo tank increases beyond the control
Before loading the cargo, it is essential to determine the of the existing cargo handling system – the cargo tank’s
precise triple point of the CO2 cargo in order to adjust relief valves will open to allow the process fluid to flow
cargo instrumentation accordingly. The purity of the until normal pressure is restored. However, if the relief
cargo is also a critical factor as it influences the physical valve fails in the open position, there is a risk of uncon-
properties of CO2, as discussed further in Chapter 7. trolled depressurization, temperature drop, and ulti-
mately solidification of CO2.
During voyages, it is important to maintain the cargo
within given operational pressure and temperature win- Therefore, special consideration should be given to
dows, ensuring it remains in a liquid phase with safe mar- vent design, setting pressures and capacities, how to
gins from the triple point. This is achieved through subtle mitigate such a solidification situation, and any other
boil-off gas (BOG) controls, using re-liquefaction systems. possible risk scenarios that may develop afterwards.
The design of the vent system in line with the relief
The IGC Code requires that the cargo system is equipped valves should also be carefully considered, such that the
with low-pressure alarms and an automatic shutdown sys- vent lines from each relief valve are independent and
tem to prevent cargo pressure dropping to levels where minimize the travel length to the vent outlet point, and
cargo may start to undergo a transition from liquid to solid removing protective screens to the outlets, in order to
state. Specifically, the pressure should be at least 0.05 remain free from obstructions that cause clogging. Fur-
MPa above the triple point for the specific cargo being thermore, the height of the vent masts should be appro-
carried. If this threshold is breached, an alarm should priate and take into account any risk of CO2 exposure to
be triggered at both the cargo control position and the the crew in safe areas.

FIGURE 5-1
FIGURE 5-1
Control of cargo pressure and additional measures
Control of cargo pressure and additional measures

PRV vent lines – Independent, minimize

the travel length
Maximum allowable relief valve setting (MARVS)
pressure for PRVs
High pressure alarm
BOG controls – by pressure accumulation,
and/or re-liquefaction systems

Operating
pressure range

Low-pressure alarm

Low low-pressure ESD

– At least above 0.05 MPa above the triple point

The triple point for the particular cargo being carried

Pressure
range

©DNV 2025

17
CO2 shipping

5.4 Dual cargo possibilities To enable dual cargo possibilities, the following consid-
Although the shipping CCS value chain continues to erations should be taken into account, including but not
emerge, some shipowners might be hesitant about limited to:
ordering dedicated LCO2 carriers without firm business
cases in place. In contrast, LPG and ammonia are already • The damage stability standard increased from Moderate
being transported using well-established technologies in preventive measure (Type 3G) to Significant preventive
markets that are both more mature and stable. measure (2G or 2PG).
• Inclusion of flammability, gas detection, and fire-fighting
To bridge this gap, designing LCO2 carriers with dual related equipment, in addition to defining hazardous
cargo capabilities – such as the ability to carry LPG and/ areas.
or ammonia – may provide an opportunity to diversify • The cargo handling system including piping and
chartering options while CCS markets mature. This could tanks can be compatible, taking into account material
include transporting other gas cargoes on return voyages, comparability and stress corrosion cracking issues. As
or alternating cargoes based on availability and route an exception, the vent system should be independent
planning, thereby enhancing operational flexibility. for each dedicated service.
• Utilization of one cargo tank design with different
However, accommodating multi-gas cargoes like this operating pressures and liquid densities – for example,
may have significant impact on the vessel design. This approximately twice that of LPG/ammonia.
should include provisions for flammable and toxic prod- • Operation durations and maintenance for changeovers
ucts, while also ensuring compliance with the complete to different cargoes – for example, proper cleaning to
IGC Code, without any lenient requirements sometimes remove residuals affecting CO2 purity and vice versa.
applied to LCO2 carriers.

That said, LCO2 carriers are typically equipped with

gas fuel systems located in cargo areas, which already
address some flammability-related requirements, provid-
ing a partial foundation for dual-fuel readiness.

FIGURE 5-2

Dual cargo carrier concept

LPG/NH LPG/NH
³ ³
Unloading Loading at
storage terminal
Changeover

Changeover

Loading at
LCO² emitters LCO² offloading
LCO LCO
² ² at receiving terminal

CO² capture,
liquefaction plant
at onshore storage

©DNV 2025

18
 CO2 shipping

5.5 CO2 reconditioning Several projects have already been considering this novel
The concept of CO2 reconditioning plants on LCO2 carri- operation to diversify operability and market readiness.
ers or offshore installations enabling direct injection or To support safe development of such solutions, DNV pub-
offloading before injection has been addressed in the lished a world-first, new Class Notation 'CO2 RECOND'
evolving landscape of the CO2 value chain. This is simi- in the July 2025 edition of the Rules for classification for
lar to Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRUs) Ships with the specific requirements given in DNV-RU-
in the LNG market, which are ordinary LNG carriers but SHIP Pt.6 Ch.4 Sec.17., based on the long experience and
equipped with onboard regasification plants acting as proven requirements in the FSRU market, but adopted to
temporary receiving terminals afloat with easy mobili­ this special need for CO2 handling.
zation and providing flexible gas supply directly to shore.
Chapter 6 provides further information on the different
CO2 reconditioning vessels, classed as either ships or measures for the actual injection of CO2 in line with CO2
floating offshore installations, can transfer liquefied CO2 reconditioning.
from cargo tanks and adjust ('recondition') the CO2. The
reconditioned CO2 should meet the required reservoir
conditions in terms of pressure and temperature prior to
injection into an offshore reservoir or another receiver.
The actual injection may be carried out by the vessel itself
directly or via a separate installation.

FIGURE 5-3

CO²RECOND
CO RECOND concept
concept
2

Required temperature &

A temperature
pressure
&
X pressure for injection
CO reconditioning plant
²

B temperature
pressure
&

Z temperature
pressure
&

©DNV 2025

19
CO2 shipping

6. Offshore discharge and injection

Sequestration of captured CO2 is an important part of the DNV has lately launched the class notation CO2 RECOND
decarbonization value chain and there is currently much which covers the reconditioning of CO2 and connection
focus on utilizing offshore depleted oil and gas reservoirs point to final CO2 receiver. More information of this nota-
or aquifers to store the CO2. tion is given in Chapter 5.

There are several solutions to inject the captured CO2 into

6.1 Direct injection from a shuttle tanker
these subsea reservoirs. One is to transport the captured
The shuttle tanker transports CO2 from a storage hub
CO2 from a collection point onshore to the subsea injec-
to the injection site. The shuttle tanker is outfitted with
tion point via a subsea pipeline. Another is to transport
means to connect to a well injection system (typically a
the CO2 to the point of injection using CO2 carriers.
buoy or potentially an existing wellhead platform) and
position-keeping capability.
The actual injection of the CO2 transported to the injec-
tion site may be achieved by different measures:
The shuttle tanker has a CO2 conditioning plant installed
on board to bring the stored CO2 to the required tem-
• Direct injection from the shuttle tanker
perature and pressure for injection via a riser and subsea
• Injection via a permanently positioned bottom-fixed
arrangement.
injection installation
• Injection via a permanently located floating injection
A single shuttle tanker may be employed for intermittent
unit without storage
injection to the reservoir in cases where this is acceptable.
• Injection via a permanently located floating injection
unit with integral storage
Where continuous injection is required, it would be neces-
sary to have several shuttle tankers with individual means
of connection to the injection arrangement, and a control
system, in order to ensure continuous injection capability.

FIGURE 6-1

Direct injection dual

20
 CO2 shipping

6.2 Injection via a FIGURE 6-2

permanently positioned
Jacket
bottom-fixed injection
installation
The installation may be an existing
offshore platform, for example a
jacket wellhead platform, located
in relatively shallow water. In this
case the conditioning and injection
arrangement are located on the
offshore platform. Injection may
be intermittent or could be contin-
uous if several shuttle tankers are
employed or if a storage vessel is
located at the installation to ensure
supply between shuttle tanker visits.

6.3 Injection via a FIGURE 6-3

permanently located
FIU with approaching vessel
floating injection unit
without storage
The shuttle tanker may supply CO2
to a floating injection unit (FIU). The
conditioning and injection arrange-
ment would typically be installed
on the FIU. The FIU without integral
storage could be based on a typical
offshore floating installation such as
a semi-submersible, a spar, or a ten-
sion leg platform (TLP), or a simpler
buoy arrangement. Selection might
depend on water depth.

Again, the solution is based on

intermittent injection but could
accommodate continuous injection
if additional storage facilities (e.g. a
floating storage unit), or potentially
multiple connections and control
arrangements to accommodate sev-
eral shuttle tankers, are provided.

21
CO2 shipping

6.4 Injection via a FIGURE 6-4

permanently located
FSIU
floating injection unit with
integral storage
This solution, termed a Floating
Storage and Injection Unit (FSIU),
would receive CO2 from a shuttle
tanker and then condition and inject
the CO2. Having integral storage
would permit continuous injection
to the reservoir. The FSIU would be
permanently located at the point of
injection and be connected to the
reservoir via an injection riser and
subsea wellhead.

The floating installations described can follow a similar Injection risers, subsea wellhead systems, and associated
approach to equivalent design used in the shipping and control arrangements can utilize experience from the
floating offshore industries. Ship-shaped units, whether offshore industry.
covered by maritime or offshore regulations, will gen-
erally involve use of ship design practice supplemented Some potential issues are currently under discussion con-
where necessary with additional considerations for cerning the various means of injection. These include:
permanently located units (e.g. site-specific conditions,
mooring arrangements, additional deck loads). • What regulatory regime should such installations come
under, maritime or offshore or some mixture of both?
CO2 containment can follow IGC requirements in general, What implications might that have for design and cost?
supplemented where necessary with consideration of the • Are there any gaps in the technology required?
effects of operational issues, for example partial filling These might include design of large-scale storage
and sloshing effects at an injection site. Mooring arrange- tanks, transfer arrangements from a shuttle tanker,
ments are largely unaffected by the medium being compatibility of components in the system with the
handled and can follow known practice. Transfer arrange- medium being handled, and control arrangements
ments will likely be based on hose or loading arm technol- where several shuttle tankers might be involved.
ogy where much of the handling and operational issues • What are the preferred mooring arrangements to
will be known. However, issues such as material compati- facilitate transfer and ensure sufficient availability of the
bility and system venting would need special attention. injection operation?
• When using experience from the offshore industry
Similarly relevant experience with the regasification of is there an opportunity to simplify arrangements
liquefied gas can be used with respect to the CO2 condi- in consideration of the different hazards posed by
tioning system, with the issue of compatibility with CO2 hydrocarbons and CO2 handling?
needing to be specifically addressed and covered by the • What measures can be taken to protect against large-
new DNV notation CO2 RECOND. scale CO2 leakage?
• Need for a vapour return arrangement.

22
 CO2 shipping

7. CO2 composition

7.1 Cross-cutting issue along the whole 7.2 Practical experience with
value chain impurities
Historically, the relatively small volumes of CO2 trans- The development of ship-based transport of
ported by sea (and road/rail) originate from dedicated large volumes of CO2 captured from industrial
industrial sites, such as the production of ammonia-based processes is still in its early stages, with limited
fertilizers. This process generates a clean, nearly pure CO2 practical experience.
stream (food-grade quality CO22). This product is currently
transported and stored under what is denoted medium- To date, operational experience has been
pres­sure conditions. restricted to transporting relatively clean CO2
(food-grade quality) under medium-pressure
For the large-scale CCUS market that is currently under conditions. For example, the EIGA 2 specification
deployment, CO2 will be captured from a wider range of imposes strict limits on impurities such as NO/NO2
industrial emitters. This typically include industries associ- and sulphur compounds.
ated with production of cement, ammonia, blue hydrogen,
syngas and processing, and combustion fossil (and bio) For some emitters participating in the CCUS
fuels or waste for power generation. Each of these indus- value chain, meeting these stringent require-
tries produces a CO2 stream with a unique contamination ments may be challenging and costly. Currently,
profile, hence, potentially introducing impurities not cov- there is limited experimental data to guide the
ered by current industry experience. industry in establishing safe impurity thresholds
for CO2 transported on board ships 3 . The IGC
The product contamination profile is characterized by Code 4 distinguishes between high-purity CO2
type and concentration of impurities contained in the and reclaimed-quality CO2. This notes that cargo
CO2 product, originating from the emitter, the capturing compositions can influence phase transitions
process (e.g. amines) or conditioning (e.g. glycols for (both qualities) and corrosion (reclaimed quality).
dehydration). However, the IGC Code does not provide specific
guidelines related to the concentration of critical
Different impurities have different implications with impurities present in captured CO2.
regards to effect on product thermo-physical proper-
ties (product/cargo handling), safety and environmental
7.3 Typical impurities and effects
risk (toxicity) and materials integrity (e.g. corrosion and
The contamination profile of a CO2 stream
cracking). Water and other specific contaminants can react
depends on several factors including the source,
generating a corrosive environment and increasing the
the capture and dehydration technologies, and
risk related to corrosion and integrity. Impurities may also
the product’s temperature and pressure. Tem-
pose challenges to the receiver of the CO2, e.g. for perma-
perature and pressure also influence the solubil-
nent underground storage or utilization.
ity of impurities.

Understanding the implications and limitations associ-

The impact of impurities on the design and oper-
ated with impurities throughout the CCS value chain is
ation of the CCS value chain varies depending on
essential to balance tech­nical concerns, such as corrosion,
the type and concentration of each impurity. Effects
cargo handling, and cargo management, with commercial
may arise from the presence of individual compo-
impacts. These include the purification processes, emitter
nents or from the interactions between impurities.
operating profiles, asset design and integrity, operational
performance, and the final use of the product, whether it is
Impurities can be categorized in various ways,
permanent underground storage or utilization.
for example by type, concentration, origin, and
effects under specific conditions. They can also be
At present, CO2 specifications are to a large extent defined
classified based on their impact on health, safety,
value chain specific to mitigate the risks related to the CO2
and the environment (HSE), cargo management,
compositions within the value chain. For a developing
and asset integrity, as shown in table above.
CCUS market, it is foreseen that the CO2 specifications will
gradually converge to fit an open-source market, allowing
for commercial competition and flexibility.

23
CO2 shipping

For ship-based transport of liquid CO2, it is generally The presence of non-condensables can shift the phase
expected that the stream will contain more than 99.X mol% envelope and bubble point, but within expected concen-
CO2, with impurities represented by 0.X mol%. These lim- trations, they are not expected to significantly affect the
its are typically defined on a project-specific basis. triple point. Other impurities present at ppm level, such as
water and acid gases, may react resulting in the precipita-
Typical impurities that can be found in the stream are: tion of an acid aqueous phase.
• Water
• Non-condensable and other volatile organic Figure 7-1 provides schematic illustration of the typical
compounds (VOC) such as CH4, H2, O2, C6H6, alcohols type of impurities present in the stream, whether these
(which can be also carried over from the capturing and are in liquid, gas, or solid state and dissolved in the liquid
dehydration process) bulk or not.
• Inorganic compounds, including SOX, NOX, H2S, NH3
• Impurities carried over from the capturing process (e.g. Water
amines) or conditioning (e.g. glycols for dehydration) Avoiding a free aqueous phase is crucial, irrespective
• Solids of the source and final use of the captured CO2, as free
water contributes to generation of a corrosive environ-
The concentration of these impurities can vary from %mol ment. Water can also react with acidic gas impurities to
levels (for example for non-condensables) to ppm level form an aqueous acid phase and further increase the risk
(such as water, inorganic and acid gases). of corrosion.

FIGURE 7-1

Schematic representation of the impurities present in the stream

Liquid line loading

and offloading Vapour line
Non-condensable and other volatile
organic compounds in gas phase

CO2 vapour

Vapour phase

Liquid phase

Precipitation of liquid phase Hydrates Solids and solid Chemical reactions and/or solubility
(light and heavy components) products of chemical modifier resulting in precipitation of
reactions acidic aqueous phase

The figure illustrates non-condensable gases and they precipitate as a separate phase. In a binary sys-
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that tend to tem consisting of CO2 and water, it is expected that
evaporate from the liquid bulk and accumulate in the water will generate hydrates or water ice. However,
gas phase, thereby influencing the pressure–liquid presence of other impurities, such as the ones car-
equilibrium. These compounds may be exchanged ried over from the dehydration process (e.g. glycols),
with onshore facilities via vapour return lines, if such affect the freezing point and hence a liquid aqueous
systems are in use, during cargo handling operations. phase may precipitate. Water can also react with
other acid gases, and the product of these reactions
Impurities that may be liquid state at the relevant can result in the precipitation of an acidic aqueous
conditions may be dissolved in the liquid bulk until phase.

24
 CO2 shipping

Additionally, excessive water content may lead to hydrate These compounds are soluble in water and alter its solubil-
formation in both the liquid and gas phases, posing opera- ity and freezing point, thereby indirectly influencing water
tional and safety challenges. precipitation and, ultimately, corrosion.

Non-condensable and other volatile organic compounds Solids

(VOC) Solid particles can follow the gas from different sources
Under shipping conditions, typically medium and low via the capture and compression process. Solids can
pressure, certain impurities tend to remain in the gas be the result of metal (iron) oxides from manufacturing
phase. Non-condensable gases may be present in the CO2 and commissioning, halides, soot (carbon particles), and
stream at relatively high concentrations (i.e. mol% levels), precipitate due to chemical reactions (elemental sulphur,
though their solubility in the liquid phase is influenced by carbamate, ammonium salts) during ship transport. Some
the product conditions and presence of other impurities. of these compounds are likely to be harmful to people
and the environment and will, therefore, be limited by HSE
The presence of non-condensables in the stream modifies requirements.
the phase diagram, shifts the bubble point and conse-
quently affects the compression requirements and pres- The formation of solids can present operational chal-
sure build-up during ship voyage. lenges, as their accumulation may negatively affect the
functionality of pumps and valves and periodic removal
While most non-condensables (except oxygen) do not of deposits from tanks may be necessary. under-deposit
participate in acid-forming chemical reactions, they can corrosion may still occur, posing a risk to system integrity.
influence the solubility of other impurities, such as water,
which are connected to corrosion risk.
7.4 Risks associated with impurities in
Although hydrocarbons are generally non-reactive and shipping operations
non-corrosive under typical conditions, their presence The presence of impurities has implications for both
may still be restricted due to health, safety, and environ- the design and operation of the CCS value chain. These
mental (HSE) considerations, or based on the intended impurities introduce risks to shipping operations and
end use of the CO2. infrastructure, affecting asset integrity (e.g. corrosion),
cargo handling and management, as well as safety and
Hydrogen (H2) can cause material embrittlement, while environment.
carbon monoxide (CO) may lead to stress corrosion crack-
ing, both of which pose integrity risks. Cargo loading and offloading
The base case for the CCS value chains under devel-
Inorganic compounds opment involves loading and offloading operations
This category includes acidic gases such as SOx, NOx, via vapour return system. Through vapour return lines,
and H2S that can react with water and oxygen, producing impurities that accumulate in the gas phase are exchanged
sulphuric and nitric acids as well as elemental sulfur. between the ship and onshore facilities.

Recent publications indicate that even at low concentra- In value chains where multiple emitters share the transport
tion levels (ppm levels), combinations of these impurities and storage infrastructures, CO2 streams with varying
can react resulting in the production of sulfuric and nitric contamination profiles are collected from different sites.
acids which can precipitate forming an aqueous corrosive In such scenarios, vapour exchange between the ship and
phase 5 . The solubility of these acids is currently unknown. onshore facilities can result in blending of compositions,
To date, the philosophy captured in the specifications has effectively transferring impurities from one emitter to
been to limit the concentration of acidic gases to reduce another.
the risk of chemical reactions and precipitation of aque-
ous acid phase, in turn mitigating the risk of generating a Consequently, emitter facilities must handle vapour com-
corrosive environment. positions originating from external sources, often differing
from those produced on-site.
The CO2 stream may also include other impurities such as
Cl2, HF, HCl, and HCN. The effect of these compounds on This can pose operational and regulatory challenges,
chemical reaction, corrosion, and water solubility is to date particularly for emitters participating in other value chains,
not documented in public literature. such as food and beverage or agricultural applications,
where stricter purity requirements apply. Additionally,
Impurities carried over from capture and treatment process environmental regulations may limit the types of gases
The chemicals involved in the capturing process (e.g. that can be vented by emitters located in specific geo-
amines) and in the dehydration (TEG/MEG) can be carried graphic regions.
over to the stream.

25
CO2 shipping

The installation and use of reliquefication plants, vaporiz- tion that the transported CO2 composition will not create a
ers, or other technologies that enable cargo handling with- corrosive environment within the cargo tanks.
out vapour return can help reduce the risk of cross-con-
tamination during loading and offloading operations.
7.5 CO2 specifications
Cargo management during voyage To manage the risks associated with CO2 composition,
Heat ingress into the cargo tank during voyages leads to project-specific CO2 specifications are being established.
increased temperature and pressure in the cargo tanks. A specification defines permissible impurity thresholds
required to ensure safe handling, transport, storage, and
To prevent pressure from exceeding acceptable limits, the integrity of associated assets for a particular project.
which could result in venting situations, the generated
boil-off gas must be properly managed. The IGC Code Specifications are typically derived from a comprehensive
outlines alternative methods for effective cargo manage- assessment of constraints across the entire CO2 value
ment under such conditions. chain. They account for a range of parameters, including
emitter-specific contamination profiles, operating modes,
In the shipping solutions under development, boil-off is product conditions, infrastructure design, and end-use
typically handled by insulation and pressure accumulation. requirements.
Alternatively, the use of a reliquefication plant could be
considered for long-haul voyages. For transportation and storage projects, a single CO2
specification is generally defined per project and applied
The presence of non-condensable and other volatile uniformly across all connected emitters, even though their
organic compounds (VOC) will affect the pressure actual product compositions may vary. Since the impact
build-up in the containment system during voyage. of impurities depends not only on individual components,
Additionally, non-volatile components may also accumu- but also on their interactions and combined effects, a
late over time in cargo tanks, altering the composition specification must address the range of compositions
of the vapours that will be ultimately handled by the aggregated from the relevant emitters.
onshore facility.
As a result, a single-source CCS project may allow higher
To control the cargo tank temperature in ballast voyages, levels of some impurities compared to a multi-source CCS
a small amount of cargo denoted as heel is retained in project where cross-interactions between impurities from
the tanks. In cases where the new cargo has a different different emitters can occur. A unique CO2 specification
contamination profile than the previous one, the heel facil- applicable to all projects and accommodating the full
itates the mixing of impurities, potentially altering the con- range of contamination profiles, infrastructure designs,
centration of critical components. This co-mingling may operating modes, and end-use requirements could lead to
trigger chemical reactions in the cargo tank, with eventual stringent impurity limits which can be challenging to meet
precipitation of an aqueous acid phase and increasing the for some emitters.
risk of corrosion
A CO2 specification is a critical element in mitigating risks
The heel can lead to impurity build-up over successive associated with varying CO2 compositions. In addition
transport cycles. Variations in composition and concen- to defining acceptable limits, it is essential to implement
tration may trigger unexpected chemical reactions. Over measures that control the composition of the cargo loaded
time, this accumulation may require periodic tank draining onto the ship, ensuring compliance with the established
to ensure safe and efficient operation. specification. Considering that there is still limited prac-
tical experience with handling CO2 with different compo-
It is important to note that gas carriers are generally sitions, additional means to manage the risk of corrosion
designed without corrosion barriers. So far, CO2 carriers may be introduced.
have followed this design practice, based on the assump-

26
 CO2 shipping

Appendix I – Class notations

For a liquefied CO2 carrier newbuild the following DNV Other relevant class notations and register information
class notations may be relevant: will be considered for each specific design.

1A Tanker for liquefied CO2 BIS BWM(T) Clean A short description of the class notations can be found in
CO2 RECOND COAT-PSPC(B) Cyber secure(Essential) the table below.
E0 ER F(A, M) LCS NAUT Recyclable

DNV class notation Description of DNV class notation

1A Classification mark by DNV for hull and machinery, unrestricted service area.

Tanker for liquefied CO2 Ships intended for carriage of liquefied CO2.

BIS The additional class notation BIS applies to vessels which have been prepared for in-water survey of the
vessel's outside, which includes the openings in sides and bottom below the deepest load water line,
bottom plugs, echo sounders, and other underwater equipment.

BWM(T) The additional class notation BWM sets out requirements for ships that carry ballast water with the
intention to meet the requirements of the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention).
The overall objective of the BWM Convention is to prevent transfer and introduction of harmful aquatic
organisms and pathogens via ballast water. The additional class notation BWM provides requirements
for vessels in international trade intended to discharge ballast water conducted through ballast water
management.

Qualifier for class notation:

E(m) Ballast water exchange at sea is accepted. (m) denotes method of exchange as follows:
s sequential method
f flow-through method
d dilution method
T Compliance with regulation D-2 of the BWM Convention by means of a type approved ballast
water treatment system (by the BWMS Code).

Clean The additional class notations Clean, Clean(Design), Clean(Tier III) and Clean(Design, Tier III) set
requirements for a ship's design, operation and equipment, reducing the environmental impact from
emissions to air, discharges to sea, and deliveries to shore from vessels. The requirements for these
additional class notations are in compliance with, or more extensive than, those found in international
standards currently in force.

Qualifier for class notation:

Design Identifies additional requirements for controlling and limiting operational emissions and
discharges. In addition, this qualifier specifies design requirements for protection against acci-
dents and for limiting their consequences.
Tier(III) May be assigned for those vessels complying with the NOx emission requirements of Tier III
according to MARPOL Annex VI, Regulation 13

CO2 RECOND The additional class notation CO2 RECOND provides requirements for CO2 reconditioning plants with
related offloading arrangements to minimize the risk to the vessel, its crew, and to the environment.

COAT-PSPC(B) The additional class notation COAT-PSPC gives requirements for corrosion prevention (coating) of
tanks, spaces and areas, in accordance with the IMO performance standard for protective coating.

Qualifier for class notation:

B Ballast tanks
C Cargo oil tanks
CA Cargo oil tanks (alternative means)
D Double skin of bulk carriers
V Void spaces of bulk carriers and oil tankers

27
CO2 shipping

DNV class notation Description of DNV class notation

Cyber secure (Essential) The additional class notation Cyber secure provides a structured and flexible framework for design
and implementation of barriers to identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover from cybersecurity
incidents.

Qualifier for class notation:

<None> Initial level of cybersecurity aligned with IMO resolution MSC.428(98) and MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3.
Essential E ssential level of cybersecurity for the vessel's essential systems. Covers IACS URs E26 and
E27, entered into force 1 July 2024.
Advanced Advanced level of cybersecurity for the vessel's essential systems.
+ Selected level of cybersecurity for specified system(s)

E0 The additional class notation E0 applies to periodically unattended machinery spaces, where machin-
ery, alarm and automation arrangements provide for the safety of the ship in all sailing conditions,
including manouevring, and when alongside, which are equivalent to that of a ship having machinery
spaces attended. Cargo handling is not included.
The additional class notation E0 is considered to meet the regulations of SOLAS regulation II-1/E, for
periodically unattended machinery spaces, when alarms, required for E0 in this section, are relayed
to the bridge and the engineers' accommodation. Additionally, a bridge control system for the main
propulsion machinery, arranged as specified in Pt.4 Ch.1, and a watch responsibility transfer system, are
also required to be installed.

ER The additional class notation ER, emission reduction, provides criteria for the safe and environmentally
friendly arrangement and installation of machinery for NOx and SOx exhaust gas emission reduction.
The objective with the additional class notation ER is to provide requirements for arrangement and
installation of machinery with the purpose of reducing NOx and SOx exhaust gas emissions to air.
The scope includes requirements for the design and arrangement of EGCS, SCR, and EGR systems,
including the following:
– piping systems conveying wash water and/or treatment fluids
– exhaust arrangements and components
– control, monitoring and safety systems and components
– manufacture, workmanship and testing.

Qualifier for class notation:

SCR Reduction of NOx emissions by selective catalytic reduction systems. Applicable for all
vessels where SCR systems are installed in one or more exhaust lines.
EGR Reduction of NOx emissions by recirculation of exhaust gas. Applicable for all vessels
where EGR systems are installed in one or more exhaust lines.
Tier III Reduction of NOx emissions certified in compliance with the NOx emission requirements
of Tier III according to MARPOL Annex VI, regulation 13.

Additional qualifiers for SOx reduction systems

EGCS open Removal of SOx by use of seawater spray without means for recirculation (open loop
scrubber system). Applicable for all vessels where open loop scrubber systems are
installed.
EGCS closed Removal of SOx by use of water spray in a closed circulation system (closed loop system).
Applicable for all vessels where closed loop scrubber systems are installed.
EGCS hybrid Removal of SOx by use of sea- or freshwater spray in open or closed circulation (open and
closed loop system). Applicable for all vessels where any configuration of hybrid scrubber
systems are installed.
EGCS dry Removal of SOx by use of a dry medium through which the exhaust stream is passed.
Applicable for all vessels where dry scrubber systems are installed.

Optional additional qualifiers

Enhanced Installations with enhanced availability. Additional qualifier defining emission reduc-
tion systems as a system supporting the main functions of the vessel according to
Pt.4 Ch.1.
Zero discharge (x) Removal of SOx with holding tank capacity for (x) days. Additional qualifier for closed
and hybrid exhaust gas cleaning (EGC) systems with holding tank designed for 100%
EGC system load for (x) days.

28
 CO2 shipping

DNV class notation Description of DNV class notation

F (A, M) Additional fire safety - F

The objective is to provide measures for enhanced fire detection and fire-fighting capabilities for differ-
ent ship types. The safety measures are supplementary to those given in SOLAS II-2.
The scope of the class notation F is to provide procedures and requirements for fire detection and
fire-fighting for the accommodation area, machinery space, and cargo area for specific ship types.

Qualifier for class notation:

A Additional fire protection in accommodation area.
M Additional fire protection for machinery spaces.
M-P Additional measures for machinery spaces.
C Additional fire protection in cargo area – for specific ship types only.

LCS The additional class notation LCS sets requirements for vessels equipped with a loading computer
system.
The scope for additional class notation LCS concerns an onboard computer system running a combina-
tion with software modules for stability and strength verification. The term loading computer systems
applied in these rules also covers the term loading instruments and onboard stability computers.

Qualifier for class notation:

The qualifier DC added to the notation (i.e. LCS(DC)) concerns damage control software developed to
assist the master as a decision aid, receiving input from flooding and filling detectors installed in the
vessel's compartments.

NAUT The additional class notations NAUT(OC) and NAUT(AW) set requirements for bridge design, worksta-
tion arrangement, installation of navigational equipment, and provision of manouevring documentation
in seagoing vessels; thereby reducing the risk of collision, grounding and heavy weather damage.
The scope for additional class notation NAUT(NAV) is related to the ergonomic and technical design of
the bridge. This notation has been developed to realize a successful ergonomic design of the bridge
and the equipment on the bridge, which will improve the reliability and efficiency of navigation. Addi-
tionally, these rules contain ergonomic requirements as well as a functionally oriented bridge layout to
support watch-keeping personnel in their tasks by a user-centred design of the bridge equipment and
layout.

Qualifier for class notation:

NAV Basic requirements.
OC Enhanced requirements targeting ships largely operating on the high seas.
AW Enhanced requirements targeting vessels largely operating in coastal and narrow waters.

Recyclable The class notation Recyclable facilitates correct documentation of hazardous materials used on board,
also supporting that the recycling process of a ship may be carried out without posing unnecessary risks
to human health, safety, and to the environment.

29
CO2 shipping

For an FSIU newbuild the following DNV class notations Other relevant class notations and register information
may be relevant: will be considered for each specific design.

OI CO2 Injection and storage installation, Location, A short description of the class notations can be found in
POSMOOR, CO2 RECOND, BIS the table below.

DNV class notation Description of DNV class notation

OI CO2 Injection and Main Class notation for a non-self propelled Floating Storage and Injection Unit vessel.
storage installation

Location Qualifier that indicates that the environmental conditions at the operation site have been specifically
considered.

POSMOOR Addresses the position mooring arrangement.

CO2 RECOND The additional class notation CO2 RECOND provides requirements for CO2 reconditioning plants with
related offloading arrangements to minimize the risk to the vessel, its crew, and to the environment.

BIS The additional class notation BIS applies to vessels which have been prepared for in-water surveys of
the vessel's exterior, which includes openings in the sides and bottom below the deepest load water-
line, bottom plugs, echo sounders, and other underwater equipment.

CCS Voluntary notation addressing design and installation of a flue gas carbon capture plant.

Abate Voluntary notation that addresses how the installation documents measures to reduce GHG emissions.

30
 CO2 shipping

Appendix II – Guidance on the relevant

requirements for LCO2 carriers
The table below gives relevant guidance information Additional requirements for CO2 carriers can be found in
of the requirements in each section of DNV’s Rules for the new section for carriage of CO2 – DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5
Classification of Ships Pt.5 Ch.7, which is in line with the Ch.7 Sec.26.
IGC Code.
This table is subject to change according to updates of
the Rules in the future.

Rule reference Guidance

Sec.1 General requirements Complete section is relevant.

Sec.2 Ship survival capability and location Complete section is relevant. LCO2 is considered as 3G product.
of cargo tanks Also ship Type 2PG can be considered based on compliance with Sec.2 [1.1.2].3. This
will make it possible to carry additional cargoes, however all relevant requirements
for these products will be applicable.

Sec.3 Ship arrangement • Section is relevant, except the following requirements:

• Sec.3 [1.1.2], Sec.3 [1.1.3] and Sec.3 [1.1.4] can be complied with by having A-0
bulkhead since the cargo does not represent any flammable risk.
• Sec.3 [4.1.3] is not relevant as LCO2 is non-flammable.
• Sec.3 [6] requirement for airlock is not relevant as LCO2 is non-flammable.

Sec.4 Cargo containment Complete section is relevant.

Carriage of LCO2 is normally done in Type C tanks due to the high pressure and shall
be done according to the requirements given in Sec.22.
The risk of corrosion should be considered unless the vessel is constrained to carry
only high-purity CO2.

Sec.5 Process pressure vessels and liquids, Section is relevant, except the following requirements:
vapour and pressure piping systems • Sec.5 [1.1.6] is not relevant.
• Sec.5 [2.1.1].4 is not relevant.

Sec.6 Materials of construction, quality Complete section is relevant.

control and marking

Sec.7 Cargo pressure – temperature control Section is relevant, except the following requirements:
• Sec.7 [8.1.1].4 is not relevant.

Sec.8 Vent system for cargo containment Section is relevant, except the following requirements:
system • Sec.8 [2.1.9].2 is not relevant.
• Sec.8 [2.1.10] related to vent mast arrangement is not required. However, it is
recommended to adopt the normal vent height and arrangement also for transport
of CO2, or alternatively to do a dispersion analysis to investigate risk of CO2
exposure to crew in safe areas.
• Sec.8 [2.1.16] is not relevant as, to avoid clogging of pipe, protective screens should
not be fitted in vent outlets.

Sec.9 Cargo containment system atmo- Section is not relevant due to the nature of LCO2 as non-flammable and hence the
spheric control need to inert lines and cargo tanks is found not to be relevant. Only relevant para-
graphs are:
• Sec.9 [1.1.4]
• Sec.9 [1.1.6]
• Sec.9 [1.3]

31
CO2 shipping

Rule reference Guidance

Sec.10 Electrical installations Section is not relevant as non-flammable nature of LCO2 does not create any flamma-
ble hazardous zones as given in Sec.10 except the following requirement:
• Sec.10 [1.3.6] which requires a FMEA remains valid to ensure proper boil-off
management.

Even if the non-flammable liquefied gas products do not create hazardous zones, the
risk of crew exposure to asphyxiating and potentially toxic gases in case of leakage
should be considered as given in [2.1.11].

Sec.11 Fire protection and extinction Section is relevant, except the following requirements which are not relevant:
• Sec.11 [1.1.2]
• Sec.11 [3]
• Sec.11 [4]
• Sec.11 [6]

Sec.12 Artificial ventilation in cargo area Section is relevant, except the following requirements:
• Sec.12 [1.1.4] is not required based on definition of hazardous as given in Sec.1
Table 5, however it should still be considered relevant with differential pressure to
protect adjacent areas.
• Sec.12 [1.1.6] is not required based on definition of hazardous as given in Sec.1
Table 5, however it should still be considered relevant to minimize ventilation ducts,
from areas where CO2 can be present, led through safe areas like accommodation,
service and machinery spaces.
• Sec.12 [1.1.7] is not relevant.
• Sec.12 [1.1.11] is not relevant.
• Sec.12 [1.1.12] is not relevant.
• Sec.12 [3] is not relevant.

Sec.13 Instrumentation and automation Section is relevant, except the following requirements:
• Sec.13 [6] is replaced with [2.1.7].

Sec.14 Personnel protection Complete section is relevant.

Sec.15 Filling limit of cargo tanks Section is relevant, except the following requirements:
• Sec.15 [1.5.2] related to two-phase flow vent system which can normally not be
adopted due to the properties of LCO2.

Sec.16 Use of gas fuel Generally the IGC Code apply for gas fuel on LCO2 carrier based on SOLAS Ch.II-1 Pt.
G Reg.56.4. Gas fuel will add all the cargo-related requirements for flammable prod-
ucts and also requirements to ship Type 2G will apply to LNG-fuelled LCO2 carrier.
However if a risk assessment is carried according to ALARP principle and with flag
acceptance, then Type 3G or 2PG can be applied.
Alternatively also IGF code can be adopted based on flag acceptance.

Sec.17 Special requirements Special requirements for LCO2 is given in [2].

Sec.18 Cargo operation manual and cargo Section is relevant, except the following requirements:
emergency shutdown system • Sec.18 [2.3.2] is not relevant on the basis that the non-flammable cargo makes
limited use of fusible elements.

Sec.19 Summary of minimum requirements Minimum requirements for LCO2 are given in Sec.19 Table 2. It is recommended also
to have closed gauging system instead of only restricted gauging as required.

32
 CO2 shipping

End Notes
1 Ref. CETO; https://www.dnv.com/maritime/jip/ceto

2 EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL GASES ASSOCIATION AISBL - CARBON DIOXIDE FOOD AND BEVERAGES GRADE, SOURCE
QUALIFICATION, QUALITY STANDARDS AND VERIFICATION, EIGA Doc 70/17, Revision of Doc 70/08- Doc 70

3 Sonke, J., B.H. Morlan, G. Moulie and M.S. Franke, “Corrosion and chemical reactions in impure CO2”, International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 133, 104075, (2024).

4 The International Code of the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code)

5 Sonke, J., B.H. Morlan, G. Moulie and M.S. Franke, “Corrosion and chemical reactions in impure CO2”, International Journal
of Greenhouse Gas Control 133, 104075, (2024).

Photo credits:
Adobe Stock: 15 | DNV: 3 (b) | Northern Lights/DSOC: 13 | Northern Lights/Ove Søreide: 6, 26 |
Northern Lights/Ruben Soltvedt: 1, 2, 3 (t), 7, 9 | Shutterstock: 5, 20, 21, 22

(r) right; (l) left; (t) top; (b) bottom

33
CO2 shipping

ABOUT DNV
We are the independent expert in risk management and quality assurance.
Driven by our purpose, to safeguard life, property and the environment,
we empower our customers and their stakeholders with facts and reliable
insights so that critical decisions can be made with confidence. As a trusted
voice for many of the world’s most successful organizations, we use our
knowledge to advance safety and performance, set industry benchmarks,
and inspire and invent solutions to tackle global transformations.

Regional Maritime Offices

Greater China North Europe Americas

1591 Hong Qiao Road Veritasveien 1 1400 Ravello Drive
House No. 9 1363 Oslo Katy, TX 77449
200336 Shanghai, China Norway USA
Phone +86 21 3279 9000 Phone +47 67 579900 Phone +1 281 3961000
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Korea & Japan West Europe Middle East & Africa

8th Floor, Haeundae I-Park C1 Unit, 38, Brooktorkai 18 Sheikh Zayed Street, Bur Dubai,
Marine city 2-ro, Haeundae-Gu 48120 Busan 20457 Hamburg BurJuman Business Tower 12th & 14th Floor
Republic of Korea Germany 11539 Dubai
Phone +82 51 6107700 Phone +49 40 361495609 Phone +9714 3026300
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

South East Asia, Pacific & India South East Europe

16 Science Park Drive 5, Aitolikou Street
118227 Singapore 18545 Piraeus, Greece
Singapore Phone +30 210 4100200
Phone +65 65 083750 [email protected]
[email protected]

Disclaimer DNV DNV AS

All information is correct to the best of our Brooktorkai 18 NO-1322 Høvik
knowledge. Contributions by external authors 20457 Hamburg Norway
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Germany Phone +47 67 57 99 00
editors and DNV AS. Phone +49 40 361490 www.dnv.com
www.dnv.com