The EU is planning to create a Black Sea Maritime Safety Hub.
It’s important because of the adversarial maritime climate there. The Black Sea is used by Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, and other nations as a port to the world. It’s busy, and there is danger of interference or attacks due to the war in Ukraine.
“The EU is committed to help turn the Black Sea into a mine-free sea basin through enhanced cooperation with its member states, the Black Sea partners, like-minded countries, and partner organizations,” it declares.
The plan does not propose a specific location for the hub but outlines a role in building maritime situational awareness through monitoring efforts. It would include a focus on submarine cables and offshore assets including gas and wind energy infrastructure. It would also focus on the dangers created by the shadow fleet of tankers involved in the Russian oil trade.
These are all useful functions for international trade in the area. Kudos to the EU for stepping up.
Some people think carbon capture onboard is going to be important in meeting emissions goals for ships. There is some entrepreneurship, and some interest by large oil producers and purveyors.
However, many problems remain to be solved. There is essentially no ‘supply chain’ to handle the liquefied carbon product the ships produce onboard from running the carbon capture equipment. Liquid CO2 has a market, but ports are not set up to move it from the ships to storage nor to distribute it into commercial channels.
And it’s not yet clear how much emissions reduction there will be when conventional fuel is burned on ships but the carbon is captured.
Nevertheless, there is activity in this segment. This article explains what’s happening in one case, based on info from classification society DNV.
There are also several links to resources about carbon capture for ship engines.
I’m quite skeptical of carbon capture. It’s nominally a good thing. But the cost of the storage may be large. And how much captured carbon can we reuse?
If the oil companies are back of it, how can it be all good? What are the pitfalls?
Drewry is well-known for its expertise in maritime-related matters. In a recent market opinion piece, they suggest that maritime emissions can be reduced rather simply, with port call optimization. They mean to reduce the time ships sit near a port waiting for their berth to open up.
Some ports have been successful with appointment windows. But the Drewry approach includes slow steaming to hit the port berthing window close to the time, instead of standing offshore running engines and emitting pollution. The slow steaming itself is a tested measure for reducing emissions, though it doesn’t eliminate them. The two efforts combined could save a lot of pollution, and now in some places such as the EU, emission charges based on actual fuel use numbers.
Eliminating waste in a system, such as waiting time waste, is a tried and true operations management or lean technique. But in the case of maritime shipping and ports, a lot of coordination is required. Systems need to be in place to provide accurate information about ocean carrier voyage schedules. Sailing times between ports can vary a lot, because of factors such as weather and route adjustments.
But also, both ocean carriers and ports need to share information and cooperate on setting berthing schedules. A late loading in Shanghai, for instance, will affect the projected arrival time in Long Beach. the two ports and the carrier will need to share up-to-the-minute (or hour) information about progress. Will they do it? It will require a level of interaction never before seen.
I think that ultimately, ports and carriers will be driven to this by the gains that can be made. but I think it will be a long time coming.
Update: Port optimization can actually prevent deaths. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) has recently studied the number of deaths that could be prevented by port waiting time improvement.
Supply Chain and Logistics 