Category Archives: Ports

Quote

IMO 2020 makes box lines speed up?

Mike King wrote a piece about the risk that the IMO2020 fuel regulations will induce ocean carriers to speed up, thus burning more fuel and causing more emissions.

Most carriers are equipping ships with scrubbers, which will let them continue to burn high sulfur (3.5%) fuel, rather than shift to the lower 0.5% fuel grade.  The scrubbers take out the sulfur and other unwanted chemicals, either discharging them into the sea (open-loop systems) or retaining them for disposal in port (closed loop systems).  Some ports and countries have banned the use of open-loop scrubbers near their shores.  China and Singapore are two.

Exceptions to the rules are in certain zones called Emissions Control Areas (ECAs), where the maximum sulfur content is 0.1%, very low.  ECAs are set up by countries or trading unions like the EU with a mileage limit near their shores.  While steaming in those zones, the ultra low sulfur fuel must be used.

I recently refereed a study [1] that indicated that the ECAs actually induced carriers to avoid them for longer, burning the high-sulfur fuel longer, and also in some cases going faster.  It’s an economic decision problem with fairly straightforward calculations to optimize the route taken, based on the price differential of the grades of fuel and the exact time on each part of the route. Lower emissions and lower cost come about in opposition.  The calculations are especially relevant for short sea shipping routes, such as along the East Asian and Chinese coastline.  Ships can go offshore far enough and, using their scrubbers, burn the highest sulfur fuel which might be a lot cheaper, then dart directly in when they get near the port, into the ECA region.

On long sea routes a lot of time can be spent steaming with the 0.5% fuel, and speeding up might be a way of reducing the time and improving customer service by shortening the voyage.  Delays in ocean shipping happen very frequently and are a source of much discontent among shippers; they also produce a lot of lost business for carriers.

The interesting part of the article to me is the clear indication that speeding up using a scrubber could be a viable strategy for improving service. We might then get greater CO2 emissions than we did with slower steaming.

Sustainability is always tightly coupled with economics.  We have to watch for unintended consequences whenever rules are imposed, and be prepared to adjust them. Hopefully, we’ll keep trying to improve the emissions control measures.

as-twitter-card-default-image3   via Could IMO 2020 prompt box lines to speed up? – FreightWaves

[1] Zhao, Yuzhe; Fan, Yujun; Zhou, JingmiaoKuang, Haibo. Bi-Objective Optimization of Vessel Speed and Route for Sustainable Coastal Shipping under Regulations of Emission Control Areas, Sustainability, under review(2019).

Quote

Cryptocurrency TEU token gone

Here was one of the use cases for blockchain that everyone thought was innovative, addressed a real problem, and made some sense.  Apparently the users don’t think so.

It was designed to provide a mechanism to make reservations for 3PLs and shippers for slots on container ships.  The issue addressed was overbooking and no-shows.  But apparently noi one was able to make use of it. Only 100 were traded recently, leading to the firm’s shutdown.

I suspect the problem is the ocean carriers’ propensity to cancel voyages if they don’t have enough cargo. that delays everyone’s cargo till the next ship goes. That could be a week or more on many routes.  Why would anyone book using the TEU if the voyage will be canceled?

A bit more design thinking, developing user personas and use cases, might have revealed this flaw early on and prevented the waste of venture capital and startup labor, or created more usable modifications.  But maybe it accomplished what the entrepreneurs wanted– they got funded for a year or so and put the money in their own pockets. So what about the users? The VCs have baked into their plans a 90% failure rate; they’ll just make it up on another better bet.

logo

via Low take-up forces shipping cryptocurrency teu token out of circulation – The Loadstar

Quote

Liner customers “bewildered” by new low-sulfur fuel charges – FreightWaves

Ocean carriers are confusing their customers again.  This time, it’s the low-sulphur fuel charges which are being put in place before the requirement to use it is mandated.   Each carrier has different charges, with different bases.  The result is confusion about the impact.  Some charges are being billed as “sustainability” charges. That means different things to different customers.  Most of them translate to “higher cost”.  Carriers are using various international indices to measure the changes in contracts, which may or may not relate to the actual extra cost.  And some ships are being fit to use LNG rather than the low-sulfur marine fuel, which is a whole different calculation.

Here’s an example from the article of a typical letter.

Evergreen Lo-sulfur fuel memo

The article finally gets to the bottom line.  Customers are worried that the new charges will be used by the carriers as profit centers rather than just recovering their costs.  the rate rises might go into carriers’ pockets rather than fund sustainability or simple costs.  It’s a reasonable worry, given that fuel surcharges have been used that way in the past by the carriers. Everyone knows the carriers are operating at very thin margins, particularly in the container trade.

It seems like more public relations needs to be done by carriers.  They also need to pay attention to the cost allocation part.  How can they reassure shippers that they won’t be overcharging them?  Cost allocation issues surround many business decisions, and need to be thought through.

amshipper_redbanner_left13

via Liner customers “bewildered” by new low-sulfur fuel charges – FreightWaves