Tag Archives: emissions

Quote

Fuel transition charges flood in

Here are a few of the initial announcements on fuel surcharges to compensate carriers for the IMO2020 rule requiring 0.5% sulfur fuel or equivalent scrubbing equipment.  The current gap is $171.00 between MGO and VLSFO as seen on this graph from shipandbunker.com where you can add several grades to the graph. It’s a 20-port average reported here.  A useful site.

You can see from the article that the firms are soft-pedaling the surcharges to keep from losing too many shippers.  Probably a good strategy at the start. I believe long term as refineries gear up for LSFO that the spread will narrow.

And of course you don’t have to buy MGO, you can use the dirty fuel which is cheaper.

screenshot-splash247.com 2017-11-16 08-27-01-343

via Fuel transition charges flood in – Splash 247

Quote

ONE won’t install scrubbers

The ONE ocean carrier group has decided to arbitrage the price of Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (LSFO) vs High Sulfur Fuel Oil (HSFO) by not installing scrubbers on their vessels.  That means they will have to use the LSFO everywhere it’s required, mostly in the special ECA emissions control areas set up by a variety of countries.

ONE plans to use fuel price surcharges to offset the difference in price of the fuels.  Many firms are deploying price surcharges December 1.  Surcharges have attracted a lot of unpleasant words from shippers, who will have one more thing to take into account to determine total landed cost.  ONE may need to charge more than some of the firms that are installing scrubbers, such as Maersk, Evergreen, and MSC.   It may be a disadvantage.

But, on the supply side, refiners are starting to produce the LSFO, and bunkers providers are going to inventory it.  It’s possible the price differential may not be as steep as the $200 per ton currently predicted. There certainly will be some fluctuation in the price difference, and not only in global indexes; it may vary for region to region and provider to provider.

There could be an interaction with routes. Certain routes may offer opportunities to buy LSFO at lower prices; if they’re convenient, the cost hit may not be as bad as that predicted for the industry as a whole.  Perhaps ONE knows something we don’t about their routes and bunker providers.

Apparently the scrubber producers and installers are backlogged at present, so it’s not possible to get one installed promptly.  Over time this demand will fall, and maybe one can install a scrubber cheaper later on, an example of the learning curve phenomenon.

But rather than tag ONE management with ‘too slow too late’ decision making, we need to see how the whole picture plays out.  There are lots of moving parts in the problem of how to meet IMO2020’s 0.5% sulfur requirement.

By 

 

logo

via Decision not to install scrubbers could prove expensive for ONE – The Loadstar

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).