Onboard Carbon Capture and Storage (OCCS) is a topic with high future potential – and therein lies the danger for technical communication. Those who write or speak about OCCS quickly move into a world of visions, emission targets, and industry promises. This sounds good in conference presentations but offers little help to a superintendent who needs to assess feasibility for his fleet.
The problem begins with language. Terms such as transformative technology, game-changer, or climate rescue at sea are not only imprecise in the maritime context but counterproductive. They raise expectations that the technology, at its current maturity level, cannot fulfil. A professional audience responds not with enthusiasm but with scepticism.
The core issue: OCCS is frequently narrated from the perspective of emission reduction rather than from the perspective of technical integration. This leaves central questions unanswered – questions that an engineer or fleet manager asks first: what does the plant weigh? Where does it go? How does it affect operations? And what happens with the CO2 in port?
Engineering-driven content on OCCS places the right questions at the forefront – and these are always the uncomfortable, technical questions. Space requirements, weight, exhaust gas integration, CO2 storage, and class guidelines form the foundation upon which any serious reporting must stand.
In concrete terms, this means: how much space does a specific system require on a specific vessel type? What weight reserves must be available so that the plant plus stored CO2 does not compromise stability? How is the exhaust stream split, and what feedback effects does this have on the exhaust gas boiler and any existing scrubber or SCR systems? Which storage technology is employed – pressure tank, cryo-tank, or a hybrid solution? And which classification society has reviewed the installation or granted an Approval in Principle?
These questions are not spectacular. But they are precisely the questions a technical decision-maker needs to form a well-founded assessment. Content that answers these questions has a utility that endures beyond the moment.
Engineering-driven content delivers genuine practical value – and that is the strongest editorial argument. An article that concretely explains why an amine-based system on a 5,000-TEU container vessel has different space requirements than on a Capesize bulker will be read, saved, and forwarded. An article that describes OCCS as hope for green shipping will be skimmed and forgotten.
The reason is straightforward: maritime professionals make decisions based on concrete data and empirical values. They are not searching for inspiration but for information. Content that offers technical depth positions the sender as a competent discussion partner – not as a seller of future visions.
Credibility is built through consistency. Those who consistently report on the technical realities of OCCS – retrofit challenges, port chain problems, tank logic, energy balances – build a content authority that sets itself apart from the usual industry communication.
In concrete terms, this means: every article on OCCS should answer at least one technical core question that a reader can use in their daily work. It also means writing honestly about the limitations of the technology – about cases where OCCS is not sensible, about ports that lack infrastructure, about vessel types where space requirements are a disqualifier.
Engineering-driven OCCS content must be capable of explaining technical relationships so that an experienced engineer gains new insights whilst a less specialised reader understands the core logic. This requires clear structure and precise technical terminology.
A good technical article on OCCS typically addresses one of five core areas: the capture technology itself (amine, membrane, calcium, cryogenic), the physical integration on the vessel (space, weight, vibrations, access), the energy balance (parasitic consumption, heat sources, impact on main engine), the storage and transfer logistics (tank design, pressure, temperature, port transfer), or the regulatory classification (Class Notations, IMO guidelines, EU ETS recognition).
Each of these areas has sufficient substance for standalone specialist articles. The mistake frequently made is the attempt to cover everything in a single overview article. This leads to superficiality. A modular approach is better: each article goes deep in one area and references the others for context.
Source quality is also decisive. Engineering content should be based on class guidelines, manufacturer data, pilot project reports, and peer-reviewed publications – not on press releases or conference slides. Where data is missing or uncertain, this must be openly stated. This transparency is not a sign of weakness but a mark of quality.
A further aspect is updating. OCCS is a rapidly evolving technology. An article written six months ago may already be outdated today. Engineering content therefore needs a clear date and ideally an indication of the state of technology at the time of publication.
The decision for engineering-driven content has direct implications for how maritime companies communicate about OCCS. It means a break with the usual sustainability communication, which frequently relies on emotional messaging and vague future promises.
For consultancies such as OceanSphere, this means concretely: every publication on OCCS must pass a technical test bench. Can an engineer confirm the core statement? Are the figures cited traceable? Do the technical relationships hold? If yes, the content is robust. If not, it weakens one's own position.
This also applies to tone. A Senior Marine Engineer writes differently from a marketing copywriter. He uses precise terms, avoids superlatives, and presents uncertainties openly. He does not write the future of shipping lies in OCCS but rather OCCS can, under certain conditions, make an economically sensible contribution to emission reduction – provided the technical integration and port infrastructure are sound.
This way of writing is more demanding, but it reaches precisely the readers who make decisions: technical directors, superintendents, fleet managers, and classification engineers. And these readers immediately recognise the difference between substantive content and marketing prose.
The maritime industry can learn from other sectors that have long worked with technically complex topics in professional communication. In the offshore oil and gas industry, it has been standard for decades to communicate technical developments through detailed engineering reports. SPE papers, OTC conference contributions, and specialist publications such as Offshore Engineer set the benchmark for technical depth.
A similar development has occurred in renewable energy. The early years of wind energy communication were characterised by visions and promises. Today, technical analyses dominate: turbine performance, foundation design, grid connection, and maintenance strategies. The reason: the industry has matured, and decision-makers demand substance.
OCCS is currently in a comparable transition phase. Early enthusiasm is slowly giving way to sober analysis. Those who deliver engineering-driven content now position themselves for the phase when decisions are made – not for the phase when people are merely talking.
A structured approach to engineering-driven OCCS content follows a clear logic aligned with how technical decision-makers work.
Problem definition: Every article begins with a clearly defined technical problem or a concrete question. Not OCCS is the future but rather How does an amine-based capture system affect the exhaust temperature of a MAN B&W 6S60ME-C?
Technical context: The problem is placed in its technical context. Which systems are affected? What interactions exist? Which class requirements must be met?
Data-based analysis: Wherever possible, the analysis relies on figures: pressure, temperature, volume, weight, cost. Where data is lacking, the uncertainty is named and an order of magnitude provided.
Practical conclusion: Every article ends with a recommendation or assessment that the reader can use directly. Not one should keep an eye on OCCS but rather operators with vessels above 10,000 DWT and regular calls at Rotterdam should commission a preliminary space assessment.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting