Tag Archives: imo2020

UMAS report details green priorities for shipping

UMAS is an acronym for University Maritime Advisory Service, a commercial advisory service, or consulting firm, focusing on the maritime segment. It makes use of the University College London shipping team as subject matter experts, and takes on relevant projects for the maritime industry.

Recently they’ve released a report entitled A Strategy for the Transition to Zero-Emission Shipping, which tries to spell out ways that a pathway to a 1.5 degree Centigrade increase could be found. It’s an interesting study because it deals with not only the science-based facts about fuels and propulsion systems, and ship designs, but also with the organizational, regulatory, private investment, and geopolitical aspects of a transformation.

The study outlines three scenarios for a fuel transition away from fossil fuels. These are:

  • A spread from a strong first-mover country to others
  • Independent spread from several countries
  • Global actions (such as the IMO) to drive international spread.

The report goes on to identify levers for change in each scenario, covering three phases of the transition to 1.5 degrees C. The phases are Emergence, Diffusion, and Reconfiguration. They are captured in Figure 19, on page 67 of the report. Here you can see the importance of developing new technologies and investing to expand deployment in the first two phases.

The question they address is how to get all the factors necessary to work for the change in each phase. Especially important are the Energence and Diffusion phases, partly because that’s where we are now, and partly because success there largely determines how we reach the final phase.

The report sees a place for all three scenarios in the effort. It’s quite clear about how companies, governments of states, and international organizations could participate and make the transition easier.

One interesting point is the attention paid to constructing green corridors between different ports, both domestic routes and international ones. The green corridor movement is a powerful driver, and there are now lots of examples starting to appear; they are outlined in the report. The analysis is quite detailed, with actual corridor possibilities outlined, and key national players identified. Experience with the difficulties of establishing them will be important to make the process easier in the future.

The report is also positive about the IMO and its role, while acknowledging some of the difficulties relying on it introduces.

It’s quite an exceptional work, and I recommend reading it. I wish I’d been part of it!

You can read the report pdf here:

Sam Chambers April 5, 2023

UMAS report details green priorities for shipping this decade – Splash247

 Sam Chambers April 20, 2023

IMO study makes the case for more ambitious green targets

More than 80% of box and bulk ships to fall in lowest CII ratings

According to this consultant, many ships will need to be recycled as a result of the International Maritime Organization (IMO)’s new carbon intensity indicator (CII) rule.

And there isn’t enough recycling capacity to handle them all. Far East recyclers have the most capacity, as we know. But these yards are not certified to recycle EU ships, that must be recycled at a yard following the Waste Shipment Regulation of the EU. There are only six such yards in the EU; Turkey, an OECD state may also be used.

Recycling ships has been fraught with problems for years, mostly of the social kind; but now yards will be held accountable environmentally also.

It’s a good thing for the long run, but planning is essential if you are wanting to recycle a ship.

Paul Bartlett | Jan 25, 2023

More than 80% of box and bulk ships to fall in lowest CII ratings

New shipping regulation to combat global warming is under fire

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has issued their rules for the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), which is intended to combat global warming by reducing carbon emissions. It’s been years in the making.

But some of those affected by the regulation think there are flaws in the index which can produce some unintended consequences.

We know that many ships are chartered– they are operated by firms or people who are not their owners. Charter contracts determine how the ship will be operated and how the ship owner will be paid for allowing the use of his ship. But the contracts may allow the charterer to operate the ship in a way that reduces the CII score and causes the ship to fall into a lower class. Perhaps the ship falls into Class E which says the ship should be withdrawn from commerce– sentenced to the shipbreaker.

The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), a non-governmental group that offers clauses for contracts addressing numerous international shipping issues, has prepared a contract clause for chartering contracts. This is a useful starting point, because BIMCO contracts and clauses are often used as a starting point for making a charter contract. Use of the BIMCO contracts or clauses is totally voluntary.

The article below explains some of the issues that can arise between charterers and owners, with equations to boot. The essence of the problem is that the index is based on ship capacity, not cargo carried. So sailing empty miles improves your score on the index two ways– first because sailing light burns less fuel, and second because the miles add to the denominator of the measure, reducing it. The examples given show the effect.

Many feel the index should be based on carrying cargo. And some believe the BIMCO clause will not be workable in contracts, and will not use it. But the problem remains of how to divide responsibility between ship owner and charterer for managing the CII score.

I tend to believe any rule is better than nothing. And I think charterers and shipowners will work out how to manage the contract problem. As for empty sailing or sitting in port, I don’t think anyone wants to sail without a paying cargo, or suffer delays even to improve the index. So everyone, owners and charterers, will continue to fill their ships when they can, and sail shorter routes when they can, simply because it’s expensive to operate the ship you’ve chartered; you have to earn a profit at it.

For all the complaining, the CII is still a good thing. We will have to see if it can be tweaked to everyone’s satisfaction.

Greg Miller·Wednesday, December 21, 2022

New shipping regulation to combat global warming is under fire