2016
IBIA CONVENTION EDITION HOW TO CREATE A ROCK SOLID BUNKER HUB
SPECIAL FOCUS ON THE GLOBAL CAP: “Biggest change since oil replaced coal” Preparing for low sulphur Compliant fuels
THE ONLY OFFICIAL MAGAZINE OF
EDITOR’S LETTER
LIVING IN INTERESTING TIMES Yet again IBIA is gathering at an ‘interesting’ time
This Special Issue complements the wide ranging Convention programme which covers many challenging topics. Delegates will be all too aware that IMO’s global sulphur-in-fuel cap of 0.50% is getting closer. By the time they arrive in Gibraltar we will all know what IMO has decided on whether it will indeed be as close as 2020. IBIA Chairman Robin Meech takes an in-depth look at what he describes as the most significant decision to affect the global shipping and refining industries since the change from coal to oil. On the same subject World Bunkering’s deputy editor, Unni Einemo, writing before the big decision was taken, explains what the implications are likely to be. Her words make for essential but uncomfortable reading. Chief Executive Peter Hall reports on IBIA activities and plans in his Introduction. He also sets out his views on what makes a perfect bunkering hub in a two page feature. We also have a comprehensive review of fuel quality issues by Michael Green. There is no getting away from the fact that some major challenges hang over the industry as it gathers in Gibraltar. The turmoil caused by Hanjin filing for court protection has once more underlined the precarious situation players in the bunker supply chain can find themselves in when things go badly wrong. For an industry that is still dusting itself down after the OW Bunker collapse, the news from Hanjin is particularly unwelcome.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
This episode is, though, a reminder that bunkering is just a segment of the wider shipping industry. Bunkering’s fortunes depend on those of shipping in general. Hanjin’s journey to, at least, the brink and possibly the eventual disappearance of other major container carriers has been predictable. In fact the consolidation of liner shipping down to a very few ultra large companies was more than predictable, it was inevitable once the EU effectively forced through the near global ban on rate-setting liner conferences. For the bunker industry that means fewer, but bigger, customers. However one seasoned observer of the shipping scene, Richard Greiner, Shipping & Transport Partner at accountancy firm Moore Stephens, can see a silver lining. He said: “Perversely, the collapse of Hanjin Shipping Co., which occurred after our survey was concluded, may have a positive effect on overtonnaging, although nobody would have been looking for such an extreme solution. Hanjin’s collapse has sent shock waves through the industry which will continue to reverberate for many months to come. It may also give pause for thought to those who see the future of container shipping as ever bigger and more diverse alliances.”
The more buoyant mood was particularly among charterers and managers. The average confidence level expressed by respondents was 5.4 on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), up 0.4 on the quarter to May 2016 and the highest rating for the past nine months of the survey. Increasing confidence is welcome and, it is hoped, will be reelected to some extent in the mood at Gibraltar. Certainly, on an upbeat note, delegates can also expect an amazing experience in Gibraltar on our five star venue Sunborn Gibraltar. Gibraltar’s Captain of the Port, and IBIA Board member, Bob Sanguinetti paints an optimistic picture for the port in his interview with me. That took place just after the UK’s Brexit vote, which will no doubt be a subject of keen discussion during networking opportunities and, quite possibly, in bars in Irish Town. Unfortunately I won’t be able to join you at this year’s Convention but Unni will be there and looks forward to talking to as many IBIA members as possible.
David Hughes Editor
Greiner was speaking as his firm’s Shipping Confidence Survey showed confidence had edged up for the second successive quarter in the three months to the end of August.
3
6-7
14-15
Chairman’s Letter
The Ideal Bunker Hub
IBIA Chairman Robin Meech analyses the most significant decision to affect the global shipping and refining industries since the change from coal to oil
Peter hall talks about the components required for an ideal bunker hub and the opportunities that exist as trade routes are optimised
9
17-18
Chief Executive’s Report
Being Prepared
Welcome to Gibraltar
What impacts can we expect, and is there a better way? IBIA’s IMO Representative, Unni Einemo, outlines lessons learnt and IBIA’s call for a more workable approach
10 Welcome to Gibraltar A programme packed with expert presentations, debates on the challenges facing the industry and courses meeting the needs of bunker professional all take place in one of the most interesting venues yet for an IBIA Convention
27 Diary
28-29 Innovation Shell to supply world’s first LNG-powered cruise ships
32 IBIA Events
33-39 20-23
Company News
IBIA Africa As Unni Einemo reports, the recent IBIA in Africa Forum explored bunkering trends and potential
11-12
24-26
Interview
Fuelling the Debate
On behalf of:
World Bunkering’s editor, David Hughes, recently dropped in on Gibraltar’s Captain of the Port, Bob Sanguinetti
What fuels issues can we expect when the global cap takes effect? Michael Green of Intertek ShipCare offers his perspective
IBIA Ltd 4th Floor 50 Liverpool Street London EC2M 4PR, UK
Publisher & Designer: Constructive Media
The views expressed in World Bunkering are not necessarily those of IBIA, or the publishers unless expressly stated to be such. IBIA disclaims any responsibility for advertisements contained in this magazine and has no legal responsibility to deal with them.
Constructive Media
The responsibility for advertisements rests solely with the publisher. World Bunkering is published by Constructive Media on behalf of IBIA and is supplied to members as part of their annual membership package.
50 George Street, Pontypool NP4 6BY Tel: 01495 740050 Email: ibia@constructivemedia.co.uk www.worldbunkering.com
studio@constructivemedia.co.uk
Editor: David Hughes anderimar.news@googlemail.com
Deputy Editor: Unni Einemo unni@ibia.net
Project Consultant: Alex Corboude alex.corboude@mar-media.com
BUNKERING IN JAMAICA, WE MAKE IT HAPPEN BETTER SERVICE BETTER QUALITY t HIGH QUALITY ISO 8217-2010 BUNKER FUEL SUPPLIERS t FUEL SHIPS WITHIN THE JAMAICAN WATERS 24 HOURS DAILY t QUALITY, SAFE, ECONOMIC t FLEXIBLE PRICES 5 Paraiso Avenue Kingston 10, Jamaica
Telephone : 1 (876) 929 0093 Fax : 1 (876) 620 6868 Email : sales@westindiespetroleum.com Website : www.westindiespetroleum
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
5
CHAIRMAN’S LETTER
WAITING AND WATCHING THE TRIGGERS FOR CHANGE IBIA Chairman Robin Meech analyses the most significant decision to affect the global shipping and refining industries since the change from coal to oil
D
eciding to introduce a global 0.50% sulphur cap for shipping is the result of thousands of man years of debate, drafting and analysis. We may still have quite a few man years of debate and analysis to do. Writing this prior to the 70th meeting of the Marine and Environment Protection Committee presents an opportunity to assess the implications without knowledge of what might be decided. Implementation in 2020 as advocated by the European Union and many NGO’s who rightly want a cleaner environment, but are sometimes less influenced by the subsequent consequences; or implementation in 2025 which gives more time to prepare for this monumental change. Perhaps MEPC 70 won’t decide, leaving industry guessing until MEPC 71 in May next year. The global cap presents the most dramatic change in the global marine sector ever and it has considerable impact on the producers of bunkers. MARPOL Annex VI prescribes that practically all ships over 400 GT shall use bunkers with sulphur content of less than 0.50% or operate abatement systems resulting in equivalent emissions reductions.
Supply and demand triggers Some refiners may be reluctant to make the changes required to profitably manufacture safe and usable 0.50% bunkers. After all, marine fuels are not seen as an essential market by many refiners, particularly if they are inland and have no readily available product transport links to ports. The ones that could supply the bunker market may be reluctant to invest in refinery upgrades if the low/high sulphur product differential remains high, say over $200 per tonne, which will accelerate the installation of scrubbers resulting in resurgence in demand for high sulphur residual fuels. From a refinery perspective, this could result in some of their investments being stranded and discourage upgrades of the less sophisticated and less well funded refineries. Residual represents over 70% of marine fuel demand; this is expected to fall to less than 30% once the cap is introduced. However, residual demand could recover as an increasing number of owners install scrubbers.
These scenarios are likely to play a part in refinery decisions whether the cap is introduced in 2020 or 2025. The changes, for example, needed for a refinery to install sulphur removal capacity to increase output of lower sulphur fuels takes four to five years between decision and completion. This suggests a shortfall if the cap is introduced in 2020. One of the things to watch out for, then, is announcements of relevant refinery investments that will impact supply of compliant fuels. Refiners, meanwhile, will watch for policies adopted by the larger shipping companies. If they signal a big uptake of scrubbers or investments in alternative fuels it could hold back refinery upgrades. Also worth watching, for all parties, is the success of nonrefinery based desulphurisation processes with a handful of such developments, such as Genoil and Fuel Upgrading Ltd already showing promise.
Robin Meech Chairman
A delay to 2025 would cost mankind a large number of premature deaths and illness caused by poor air quality. On the flip side, continued SOx emissions would help cool the planet and reduce CO2 emissions by millions of tons, principally from less secondary refinery processing. It would also cut bunker bills by over $100 billion compared to 2020 implementation with the implications that has for the cost of world trade.
6
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
Compliance concerns Where does the global cap introduction leave the ship operator? They can switch to 0.50% for global trading, install a scrubber or generally not comply. The nature of some sectors of the shipping industry coupled with the poor financial state, certainly in the medium term, will make the last option very attractive. This, coupled with the current ill-defined enforcement regimes in the majority of signatory countries to Annex VI, makes widespread non-compliance not just a possibility but a real concern. Outside the countries surrounded by emission control areas (ECAs), Annex VI signatory countries have so far only had to enforce the current 3.50% sulphur cap, something that is reported to have been almost non-existent. It can be expected that many enforcement agencies will be ill resourced and trained to take on the responsibility of inspecting ships calling at their ports for compliance with the global cap.
Scrubber uptake The current, and likely future state of many ship owners’ finances will not see them rushing to install scrubbers until they make financial sense. For owners of vessels not spending the majority of their time in ECAs, probably some 80% of the fleet, this means scrubbers are not viable until the global cap is introduced. Even then, many will want to wait until low/high sulphur bunker price differentials settle, compliance is known to be at a comprehensive level, the technology is fully proven and they can find an attractive finance package. Leasing of scrubbers may well be the way forward, supported by a hedge on the minimum sulphur price differential. This might mean that the expected rush to install scrubbers just before the global cap comes in becomes less of a rush and more of a steady procession to retrofit the ship at its next scheduled dry dock. The reduction in the newbuild order book will also reduce the opportunities to install abatement equipment. The theory has been proffered that once a third or so of operators have scrubbers the remainder will have to install them to achieve competitive operational costs and hence attract better charter rates.
It is quite possible that charterers will offer variable rates for compliant and non-compliant voyages outside the ECA. There is no doubt that scrubbers are technically feasible and economically viable once a significant degree of compliance is occurring globally. In fact, until the cost of LNG bunkers reduces considerably, scrubbing will be the lowest cost, most flexible and safest means to operate ships compliantly.
Finding the balance IBIA will continue to robustly participate in the debate surrounding the global cap with a strategy of pushing towards a regime that is practical, safe, does not discourage free markets, is cost effective and regulations that can be equitably enforced based on good science while protecting the environment. It is paramount that IBIA reflects the views and intentions of its membership and to this end it is hoped more organisations will support the Association and participate in its Working Groups. Table below shows projected bunker demand in million tons.
Bunker demand – million tons Moreover, enforcement agencies will have little or no jurisdiction over the operations of foreign flag ships outside their territorial waters. IBIA has helped instigate proposals, presented to MEPC 70 together with several leading shipping organisations and member states, to instigate debate on improving implementation of the global cap. Another trigger may be the move to implement compulsory emission monitoring, increasing owners’ costs but improving compliance, a trend all professional ship operators applaud. Wider policing would deter noncompliance so we need to watch both indications of compliance levels, and indications of more effective enforcement around the world.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
7
CHAIRMAN’S LETTER
It will not be long before the first 0.50% fuels are being blended to meet the new Chinese regulations. These may well provide indications of the myriad of blends that are likely to come onto the market once the cap is instigated. If the experience with the ECA 0.10% fuels is any guide, the choice of fuels will become even more fraught in the future.
®
QuinnOil Panama Canal
Physical supplier at the Panama Canal. Also available Ex pipe deliveries at Rodman Naval Station
Aquilino De La Guardiva Street Panama City, Republic of Panama
Telephone: +507 265 2634 +507 265 1277 Fax: +507 265 3727 Email: gcasis@quinnoil.com Web www.quinnoil.com
GPA
CEO’S REPORT Welcome to Gibraltar
Welcome to Gibraltar and to the 2016 IBIA Annual Convention. A convention is a long time in the making, and I do hope you will enjoy your time in Gibraltar. I can advise from first-hand experience that you will have to look hard to find a more hospitable and welcoming people.
Gibraltar The Gibraltar Straits is a key bunkering hub in Europe with Algeciras, Ceuta, Tanger Med and Gibraltar all being co-located together providing largest and most ideal bunker supply hub in the Mediterranean. We have put together an event to both educate and inform on the latest bunkering issues, mixing debate with education, opinion with facts, questions and experience and of course a list of social events to provide the essential networking opportunities. I also hope for those attending, there is going to be some lively debate and opportunities for you to shape the future direction of the Association.
The Present The last few months have been challenging and rewarding with a key focus being for IBIA to communicate the challenges faced by the “global cap” debate. I believe we are facing a paradigm shift in the supply of fuel for the global fleet. Consequently we have as an association spent a lot of hours communicating with both members, and stakeholders, about the implications of a “flick of a switch” solution.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
Unni has written some thought provoking papers along with a number of inputs into the International Maritime Organisation to be debated. We continue the debate here at the convention and look at the implications we face together to bring order to the scene.
The Future The debate concerning future conventions is already well underway; first let me explain how a convention location is chosen.
Gibraltar and Singapore both see the bunker industry as a major contributor to their local economies, and see the value of supporting it as part of a thriving marine services sector. They have put in place frameworks to build trust in their respective bunkering sectors, making them great locations to learn how to create the ideal bunker hub. We at IBIA look forward to sharing the hub experience with you
IBIA is currently split into 5 regions – the Americas, Europe and Mediterranean, Middle East and India, Africa, Asia and Australasia. Our objective is hold a forum in your region each year so that we can provide input as close to you as possible. This is complemented by the International convention in a key location. Ideally each destination city is chosen 18-24 months ahead, in order to plan hotels and venues well in advance. Currently we are looking to have our 2017 annual international convention in Singapore, the largest bunker hub in the world.
Captain Peter Hall Chief Executive, IBIA 9
CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT
©
WELCOME TO GIBRALTAR
©
GPA
SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE A programme packed with expert presentations, debates on the challenges facing the industry and courses meeting the needs of bunker professional all take place in one of the most interesting venues yet for an IBIA Convention...
W
elcome to Gibraltar. This year’s IBIA Convention will no doubt be the occasion for serious debate on serious issues – and there are plenty of those facing the bunker industry right now. But Gibraltar is also the perfect place to escape from the pressures of business – for a little while. First the serious bit. Managed by Petrospot, the convention will feature a first-class two-day IBIA Conference and Exhibition plus some highly-professional training courses, including the renowned two-day Oxford Bunker Course (Advanced Commercial) and the one-day IBIA Basic Bunker Course, which is offered in English and Spanish. The following pages in this Convention Special Issue of World Bunkering give an in-depth review of some the major issues addressed this year. So let’s go straight to that other important issue – how to have a nice time in Gibraltar. The organisers stress that, hosted aboard the five star Sunborn Gibraltar superyacht hotel, this actionpacked week will also include a range of exciting social events, networking excursions and other prime opportunities to network with more than 200 industry leaders, while discovering all that this historic Rock has to offer.
10
For most delegates their stay will start with a spectacular close up view of the Rock followed by a traffic-stopping landing at Gibraltar’s airport, which currently straddles the one road out to Spain. Holding the convention on a ship, and the Sunborn Gibraltar is a real ship, is of course another unique aspect of this year’s convention.
From the Sunborn, everything is close at hand, making it easy to combine a shopping trip with a tranquil visit to the famous Alameda Botanical Gardens. Staying with nature, Gibraltar is also a haven for wildlife. The Upper Rock Nature Reserve offers sightings of resident and migrating birds as well as the famous macaque monkeys.
Reportedly costing its owners some £150 million (US$194 million) the Sunborn Gibraltar is the Rock’s newest landmark and has been described in the press as “finished to beyond luxurious standards”.
Gibraltar’s medieval town centre is easy to navigate – largely because it essentially consists of two streets. Italianate buildings line Main Street, where traditional shops rub shoulders with designer brands at VAT-free prices. But for shipping industry people, Irish Town is probably much more interesting. Although no longer boasting a chandlery, this street still has all the hallmarks of a real port with ship agents’ offices dotted along its length.
The Sunborn is berthed at Ocean Village which provides a picturesque Mediterranean stop-off for yacht owners sailing across the Atlantic or exploring the marinas, coastlines and beaches of Spain, Portugal and North Africa. According to the hotel’s management, guests can relax on the quiet terrace while taking in the far-reaching views before descending to explore the many bars, restaurants and clubs that flank the waterfront, offering an outstanding selection of nearby venues for dining, drinking, relaxing and entertaining.
Once primarily a naval base, the Rock has developed into a major bunkering port – the largest in the Mediterranean – and offers a wide range of other shipping services to the over 70,000 vessels a year transiting the Strait of Gibraltar. Expect a warm welcome from the Captain of the Port, Bob Sanguinetti, and the Gibraltar Port Authority.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
INTERVIEW ©
GPA
A NEW COMMAND World Bunkering’s editor, David Hughes, recently dropped in on Gibraltar’s Captain of the Port, Bob Sanguinetti
C
ommodore Sanguinetti has now been in post as CEO of the Gibraltar Port Authority and Captain of the Port for over two years, following a successful Royal Navy career. So I asked him to sketch out the highlights of his career before taking on his job.
As a Gibraltarian had he ever seen himself coming back and taking a major commercial post? Did working in a commercial environment take a lot of adjusting? Bob explained that he had been “extremely lucky to work in a first class organisation such as the Royal Navy”. “The RN,” he continued, “provided me with an environment where adventure, variety, teamwork and, above all, a sense of purpose exists. Throughout my long career, spanning over three decades, I would single out the opportunity of working with many committed and highly focused individuals as an enduring highlight. Another positive attribute was the breadth of responsibility I enjoyed over the years, ranging from military operations, to strategic planning and finance, human resources and change management. More specifically, I had the privilege of commanding several warships, a unique experience and responsibility by any standards, where you strive to get the best out of the kit and the people.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
“I never really thought about coming back to Gibraltar. But I’m absolutely passionate about the sea and the marine environment – no surprise when you consider my upbringing here on the Rock when I spent most of my time either in or on the water! As for taking up this post I would say that I am delighted to be back in my birthplace, and to be able to give something back to the community that gave me a wonderful childhood in a friendly and welcoming society. Adjusting to the commercial environment has been relatively easy. In my previous career I worked at all levels, and with both the public and private sectors. The backdrop is similar – I have been struck by the vibrancy and sense of purpose of those who work in the port, and by the scale and breadth of activity. My challenge is to work closely with the shipping community, ship owners, operators and charterers, in order to consolidate and build on the services we already provide, in a safe and efficient environment. The parallels are self-evident.”
As we talked in Bob’s office on the Mole, the UK and Gibraltar were mulling over the implications of the UK’s Brexit vote. Gibraltar was strongly for the UK, and thus Gibraltar, staying in the European Union. Was Bob concerned that Brexit could hit Gibraltar’s bunkering industry?
Gibraltarians in general were disappointed by the outcome of the referendum but Bob was taking a positive approach and looking to the future. “It is still early days,” he said, “to gauge the full impact of Brexit on port activity in Gibraltar in general, and on bunkering specifically. However, what is clear is that the advantages provided by the Rock’s location and proximity to some of the busiest shipping lanes, and of Gibraltar’s ability to adapt to changes in the business environment will not diminish our ability to meet the needs of the shipping community.”
Gibraltar no longer issues bunkering figures but I asked: “In broad terms how important is Gib as a marine fuel centre and are volumes growing or declining? Bob replied: “Gibraltar is a key hub in the global maritime network, not just for fuel but for the provision of a wide range of services, from crew changes, to hull cleaning, stores and provisions and surveys. In terms of bunkering, despite the recent pressures on the shipping community and increasing bunkering volumes in 2015 Gibraltar recorded a growth in both the number of ships calling for bunkers and in bunkering volumes in 2015.
11
INTERVIEW
“This growth was reflected across most areas of activity in the port including cruise ships and, of note, superyachts. This latter category saw an increase of over 50% from the previous year and we expect to see a strong performance in this sector following the construction of over 500m of deep water berths earlier this year, allowing superyachts to extend their stays in Gibraltar beyond the time required for bunkers.”
So, “How important is bunkering to Gibraltar’s economy?” In summary the answer was ‘very important indeed’. Bob explained: “The Port generates significant revenue for Gibraltar and is often cited as one of the key pillars of the local economy. Within this sector, bunkering is the key driver, with over 5500 ships calling at Gibraltar in 2015 for this purpose. “It is therefore no surprise that we have focused on providing a most efficient working environment, without compromising on safety of navigation, which will always be our fundamental objective. We have made further improvements to the vessel management system, through which all interested parties are able to exchange vital and relevant information on movements and activity in the busy port. “We are also relocating the port office to a prominent position at the southern end of the Rock with commanding views over the busiest stretch of water across the Strait and into the Bay of Gibraltar. This will be accompanied by the installation of a state of the art vessel traffic services (VTS) system, the contract for which was signed recently by the government and Kongsberg Norcontrol (KNC). And we continue to work extremely closely with the three locally based physical suppliers, in providing an optimal level of governance and oversight thus ensuring that complaints and discrepancies on the quantities and quality of fuel delivered are kept to an absolute minimum. “All this is underpinned by a reinvigorated marketing campaign which focuses on direct engagement with ship owners and operators. Once again, in partnership with shipping agents, bunker suppliers and other service providers, this approach allows us to get a better understanding of the shipping community’s requirements and priorities.”
12
And he added: “We are absolutely delighted to be hosting IBIA’s annual convention in Gibraltar this year, reinforcing our status as the premier bunkering port in the Mediterranean.
To prove the point, shortly after the interview, it was announced that Gibraltar and the Gibraltar Port Authority had signed a bunker market development agreement with Shell.
Hosting this high profile and prestigious event will allow us to showcase the port, and in particular the bunkering setup to our shipping partners. It will also give us the opportunity to further develop our personal and professional relationships with the key decision makers in the industry, a fundamental component of our business, which helps us better tailor our services to them.”
Staying with plans for the future, I asked: “How optimistic are you about the prospects for the Gibraltar bunkering industry?”
I remarked that a lot of thought was being given to the future of bunkering here, and the infrastructure the industry will require and asked: “What can you tell us about plans for developing the bunker industry here?” Bob replied: “The Government of Gibraltar is currently reviewing a number of proposals for land based storage of marine fuels, to see if a viable solution can be found, further increasing the Rock’s capacity and resilience. In any case, there are ongoing projects which will improve the bunkering infrastructure alongside for cruise ships, superyachts and small coasters.
The reply was typically upbeat: “Despite the recent and enduring economic crisis, and its impact on global shipping, the vast majority of trade will continue to be transported by sea. The level of activity here is set to increase over time. The Rock enjoys a solid reputation as a centre of maritime excellence, demonstrating, time and time again, efficiency, resilience and a willingness to listen to and react to the changing needs of the shipping community – I am confident that the Port of Gibraltar will continue to go from strength to strength, underpinned by a thriving bunkering industry.”
“At sea, the introduction of a number of initiatives has also led to an improvement in turnaround times, with delays kept to an absolute minimum. More widely, the introduction of a special tariff at the Eastern Anchorage last summer has seen an uptake in the number of vessels wishing to stay beyond the duration of their bunker call to carry out crew changes, provisioning, light maintenance and other ship owners’ matters.” Gibraltar is currently building a gas fired power station. I enquired if that opened the possibility of LNG bunkering. “It does indeed,” said Bob. “The Port of Gibraltar is working closely with Shell on developing an LNG bunkering agreement. This is a very exciting initiative which seeks to capitalise on Gibraltar’s strategic location to make it a natural hub within a future global network of LNG bunkering points, drawing together Shell’s global presence, experience and influence and Gibraltar’s local and regional bunkering prowess.”
Commodore Sanguinetti
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
THE IDEAL BUNKER HUB
AN IDEAL BUNKER HUB For hundreds of years shipping has utilised “trade routes” that have optimised a combination of the following: shortest distances, currents, prevailing winds and suitable locations to take on provisions
T
hese routes have been amended over time due to the discovery of new routes and the addition of man-made routes such as the Suez and Panama canals. Therefore a significant factor in what makes an ideal bunker hub is location. To be at either the beginning or end of a key trade route, or on the shipping flight path, is a significant advantage.
Price Competitive product prices are equally a factor. We have seen over the years that locations offering a significantly discounted price can lure shipping away from the shortest routes if the savings achieved more than compensate for the deviation.
Fuel The location needs a ready supply of fuels that meet vessel requirements. Access to products from a refinery located close to the supply point will be an advantage as it will reduce transportation costs. However, arbitrage can level out this advantage depending on market forces. Given that shipping requirements generates demand for a number of different grades, blending and storage is also a requirement.
Storage
Sampling
The ideal bunker hub requires access to storage that can facilitate meeting demand peaks, blending to produce the right grades and segregation of different grades. Supply integrity, to maintain product quality, has become a key component. Synergies can be achieved by utilising a bunker hub to not only supply the immediate requirement for shipping, but also as a transshipment hub if the location is close to the main intersections of trade routes.
Whenever product is transferred from one storage location to another, it is best practice to take a composite sample to ensure that the quality of the product has not deviated from the original specification. Further details are available regarding “how to take samples” and “how to test samples” along with the standard of laboratory and testing required.
Location assessment Storage can be achieved either by fixed tank systems, by floating storage, or a combination of both. The standards required for floating storage (motherships) should be enhanced compared to a commercial tanker. As an example, a commercial tanker will have anchor and chain designed for the deadweight of the vessel, whereas a “mothership” operation requires both supply tankers and barges to berth alongside, so the holding ability of the anchor needs to be significantly enhanced. The specifications for a mothership operation can be obtained from IBIA.
Before we go too far we need to consider the bunker hub from a risk assessment perspective. Risk is the outcome when you consider a hazard, within a specific environment set against the frequency of the operation. All locations differ and the impacts of an incident would also vary depending on local parameters. There is much written about assessing an operation and its location and the level to which it can be done, whether it is subjective or quantitative. Nevertheless, a full risk assessments and consideration of the mitigation that is required to reduce the risk to ALARP (as low as reasonably possible) is a prerequisite for a good operation.
Standards for shore storage can vary from one jurisdiction to the next; minimum standards can again be obtained from IBIA.
14
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
• • • • • •
Hydro-dynamic factors Meteorological factors Environmental factors Traffic analysis Safety management systems in place Monitoring and evaluation standards
The bunker suppliers To be able to service customers you need to have good bunker suppliers. The suppliers’ company track record should be vetted, covering financial stability, personnel competence and quality of operation, along with a range of other factors that can be managed through a Bunker Licence scheme.
Standard of barges The barges can similarly be managed effectively with a barge licence scheme. This should not duplicate existing standards such as construction requirements, class and flag, but compliment these and existing local standards. For example, there can be crewing requirements above “safe manning certificates” which reflect the particular nature and operation of a bunker barge. Other examples include pilotage exemption standards, and mandatory operational equipment such as anemometer for identifying wind speed thresholds. Full details of typical standards, which should be viewed and adapted to prevailing local conditions, can be obtained from IBIA.
Standards For any bunker hub to be effective and transparent, operations need to adhere to a set of standards. Standards can either be mandatory, i.e. legislative, set out in a notice to mariners or port byelaws, minimum technical standards, or voluntary standards, such as a guide to good practice which lays out procedures local operators are expected to follow.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
Regulation For any system to be effective it requires management. Management can be in a number of forms. It can be self-regulation, whereby companies have effective safety management systems that are open to the local authorities. The local authority should also have reporting processes that they share within a closed industry stakeholder group, using the information for continuous improvement of the whole. Compulsory regulation can include a system that has unannounced inspections linked to licensing, where failures are linked to a penalty scheme where the ultimate sanction is the removal of licences. There can be systems that incorporate a mix of all the above into a “carrot and stick” approach where companies learn from each other, and the meaning of “best practice” is continuously being raised. A bunker hub can also be regulated by systems managed by an authority where reporting is compulsory. For each of these systems it is important to assess the reporting data to identify trends and institute corrective action. This type of information can be utilised in many ways, but clearly the hub can demonstrate improvements if an effective system is in place. Integrated incident management An attribute of an effective bunker hub is having an integrated approach to incident management, with a tiered approach to response.
Tier 1 - can be handled by the vessel(s) involved Tier 2 - requires local support Tier 3 - requires external support This enables costs sharing across the industry of resources, and synergies with command and control. It also requires synchronisation with planning and exercises.
Commercial An ideal bunker hub will need to consider the commercial aspects of maintaining a competitive advantage, meeting customers’ needs and service levels. The commercial policy will also need to consider impacts on other port operations.
Summary The above points outline some of the facets required for an ideal bunker hub, however, this is only the tip of the iceberg and below these points lie the details. The environment in which the systems operate is equally vitally important and “culture” is crucial. Sharing and enlarging the “cake” is a holistic endeavour and one “rotten apple in the barrel” can spoil it for other stakeholders, meaning the co-ordination of this process is not easy. Utilising stakeholder groups and addressing challenges together can be an effective way of overcoming these problems. Sharing perspectives from different areas around the globe and monitoring technological advances can assist in maintaining and building the competitive advantage needed to obtain and retain an “ideal bunker hub” position. Technology, such as online booking, electronic transfer of data, monitoring systems, and general reporting can help you keep ahead. ©
Captain Peter Hall Chief Executive, IBIA
15
THE IDEAL BUNKER HUB
A basic risk assessment would consider the location from:
16
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
BEING PREPARED
PREPARING FOR THE GLOBAL CAP What impacts can we expect, and is there a better way? IBIA’s IMO Representative, Unni Einemo, outlines lessons learnt and IBIA’s call for a more workable approach.
W
hen you read this, you will have the benefit of knowledge I didn’t have at the time of writing; namely whether the International Maritime Organization has made a decision on the timing of the global cap. What I did know prior to that much anticipated 70th meeting of the IMO’s Marine and Environment Protection Committee in October was this: the IMO commissioned availability study prepared for MEPC 70 categorically concluded that implementation in 2020 is feasible. An alternative study submitted to MEPC 70 categorically said it is not. And that, ladies and gentlemen, perfectly illustrates that this is not a straightforward question with a definitive “right or wrong” answer; this is a grey area. Unfortunately, the way MARPOL Annex VI is written, the decision required is black and white: implement the global cap in 2020, or defer it to 2025. IBIA has taken the view that some of the assumptions made in the availability study done for IMO by CE Delft give rise to doubt about its overall conclusions and hence uncertainty about the feasibility of full implementation in 2020. Moreover, as we highlighted in the autumn issue of World Bunkering, IBIA came to the conclusion that there is an inherent problem with the regulation, which is that a global switch form a 3.50% to a 0.50% sulphur cap simply cannot happen overnight. Simple market forces lead us to believe that owners are likely to hold off making the change until last minute due to higher cost of the low sulphur fuel. Because of this, production and supply of up to 3.50%S marine fuels would need to continue until just before the 0.50% requirement takes effect, meaning we are effectively looking at a virtual overnight shift. And therein lies the problem, which is that switching from the current 3.50% to a 0.50% sulphur limit is not as easy as flicking a switch. It represents change on an unprecedented scale for the refining industry, and would likely result in a period of severe disruptions and World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
market distortion that could reach beyond shipping. Aside from the challenge at the refineries, this will also be a huge logistical undertaking involving transport between refineries, storage and delivery vessels. After asking our members if we should raise these issues at the IMO, and consultations with other industry organisations and member states, IBIA decided to submit a paper to MEPC 70, where we also suggested that a more phased introduction of the global sulphur cap may be helpful to prevent market distortion.
and the dreaded a product squeeze and associated upward price pressure as global distillate demand would rise by about 40 million mt per year did not materialise. But we must remember that the price impact was muted by dramatic global fall in crude oil prices in the second half of 2014, making MGO cheaper at the start of 2015 than HFO had been half a year earlier. The relative premium of MGO to HFO, however, actually increased from about 50% in June 2014 to about 100% in January 2015. We cannot take for granted that the price of crude – which determines the base cost – will still be low in 2020 to help ease the financial blow.
Can we learn from ECA lessons? The first global sulphur cap reduction, from 4.50% to 3.50% in 2012, was not a big deal as the global average sulphur content of heavy fuel oil (HFO) used by ships was already below 3%. But when the emission control areas (ECAs) came into effect, it was very different. There’s not that much HFO below 1.5%S available, so the initial 1.5% and subsequent 1.00% ECA sulphur limits were to a large extent met by blending HFOs to reduce the sulphur content. This presented some quality issues, in particular a noticeable increase in cat fines, instances of fuels with poor ignition/combustion properties, and stability issues. There were also frequent sulphur disputes, mainly because these were products using sulphur as a blend target and the low sulphur components cost more.
With the new ECA limit in 2015, we also saw the introduction of a range of novel fuel formulations that cost less than MGO, pointing to a future where the global 0.50% cap would not rely on a wholesale switch to distillates. In fact, the CE Delft study’s assertion that there will be enough 0.50% fuels to meet global demand in 2020 is based on the assumption that bunker fuels between 0.10% and 0.50% sulphur will consist of a wide range of blends, containing residuals, hydrotreated residuals, heavy fractions from hydrocrackers and lighter hydrotreated fractions.
The shift to the 0.10% sulphur limit at the start of 2015 was largely met by marine gas oil (MGO). With this we saw fewer, but different quality issues – the main concern being cold flow properties. The number of commercial sulphur disputes, as well as formal notes of protest (NOP) reported by flag states to the IMO, fell by about 80% in 2015 as MGO.
Several of these theoretical blends may be of questionable suitability for marine engines. In fact, the authors of the report have not considered this issue because it wasn’t in the terms of reference for the study. As we would be looking at products containing a significant share of residual fuels, the issues we saw with the 1.00%S fuel blends for use in ECAs may arise again. Moreover, the introduction of low flashpoint blend components could render fuels in conflict with the SOLAS minimum limit of 60°C. As suppliers experiment with new fuel formulations,
Great news! There was also good news in that availability of fuels to meet the 0.10% sulphur limit was better than expected,
Some would argue that this bodes well for the introduction of the 0.50% cap, so let’s get on with it. Not so fast. It isn’t that simple.
17
BEING PREPARED
we could see teething problems and issues with compatibility which at worst could put the safety of ships and crew at risk. IBIA isn’t alone in pointing out these issues to MEPC 70; the International Organization for Standardization responsible for the ISO 8217 fuel quality standard has also sounded the alarm, in particular with regards to the potential for unstable fuel blends and the risk of introducing low flash point blend components. It also seems likely, given that sulphur will become a blend target again, that sulphur ‘off-specs’ and hence NOPs and disputes could come back with a vengeance. Analysis of NOPs in previous years suggests less than 20% would qualify as ‘off-spec’ in a commercial case applying ISO 4259. If this continues, the discrepancy between ISO 4259 for test interpretation and the IMO’s sulphur verification guidelines means the majority of disputes will be over fuels where the sulphur test results fall within 95% confidence limits, creating hassle and bad blood between suppliers and buyers. On the availability side, we must remember that the ECA shift to 0.10%S fuels applied to limited geographical areas and only when ship is inside an ECA. Moreover, the European Union requirement for ships at berth to use max 0.10%S at berth since 2010 had already encouraged a shift in global demand and supply toward low sulphur MGO. By contrast, the 0.50% cap would apply globally to all ships from day one, and the incentive to expand supply of max 0.50%S fuels prior to 2020 is very limited. For now the only place where 0.50% fuels are required is for the Chinese ‘ECAs’ which are expanding from key ports in 2017 to three sea areas by 2020. This means that the fuel ‘switch volume’ from 2019 to 2020 would be around 4 million barrels per day.
18
Mitigating unintended consequences Apart from the shear improbability of global refining and supply infrastructure being able to shift from high sulphur to low sulphur fuels from 2019 to 2020, we could be looking other unintended consequences, as described above, in the autumn issue of World Bunkering and also in our online news pages (http://ibia.net/news/). If the global cap is put off until 2025, more lead time for refinery upgrades may improve global ‘day one’ availability, but market forces would still encourage late switch; so transitional challenges remain. Since IBIA first highlighted the transitional issues in June this year, and outlined possible mitigation strategies, these were refined through consultation and feedback. Our paper to MEPC 70 has ideas for ways to phase in the global 0.50% sulphur limit over a period rather than on a specific date to alleviate market distortion. One of the ways this may be done is to introduce it in exclusive economic zones (EEZs) region by region, starting with the EU. This would also give a more gradual learning curve with new fuel formulations. We’ve also suggested that the IMO should try to facilitate uptake of abatement technology, for example by allowing exemptions for ships that have contracts in place to fit scrubbers as we could be looking at a real bottleneck prior to the implementation date because owners will likely delay investment in scrubbers. Another suggestion is to allow a reasonable period of adaption and monitoring prior to full enforcement. This could help identify where there are supply issues and also allow ships a period to ‘flush through’ their fuel systems to avoid marginal non-compliance caused by residues of high sulphur products in tanks and pipelines. A globally agreed framework would be preferable to prevent arbitrary and different enforcement approaches between countries.
We’ve also ventured a long-shot, asking the Committee to consider a ‘global ECA’ rather than a global cap. The intention of the sulphur regulation is to protect human health and the environment by reducing emissions of harmful air pollutants. Air quality modelling suggests that the main benefits from ships using low sulphur fuel occurs close to shore, with rapidly diminishing returns the further they are from shore. Changing the low sulphur fuel requirement from a global cap to a “global ECA” covering all countries’ shores could achieve three key things: improve coastal air quality to a similar extent as a global cap; reduce the global demand increase for distillates to a more manageable level; and even reduce overall global warming as we’d keep the net cooling effect of sulphur emissions on the high seas and reduce the CO2 penalty associated with stripping sulphur out of residual fuels. Our is hope that IMO member states will understand that the global sulphur cap presents transitional challenges that need to be addressed, and take inspiration from IBIA’s ideas to facilitate a smoother transition while maintaining the regulation’s intended benefits. If they don’t, we fear that unintended consequences could make the introduction of the global 0.50% sulphur a rather painful experience.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
World Wor W orrld ld Bun B Bu Bunkering unkeri keerin ke ker ing ing g CO CON C CONVENTION ONV ON VE VEN EN E NT TIIIO TIO ON E EDITION DIIT DI DIT DITION TION IIO ON 20 ON 2016 2016 16
19 19
IBIA AFRICA
©
Unni Einemo
AN EVOLVING MARKET As Unni Einemo reports, the recent IBIA in Africa Forum explored bunkering trends and potential
T
he bunker market in Africa is evolving, moving toward offering better quality of service in a more regulated environment, but the region’s potential for growth continues to face significant challenges. There are, however, opportunities for those with a vision to build an attractive offering, providing they are prepared to invest time and resources to overcome obstacles. That, in a nutshell, was the takeaway message from the IBIA in Africa Forum in Cape Town on September 15 and 16.
Regional overview: Shifting trends, new developments A major trend for bunkering in Africa is that illicit activities and poor practices are in decline and the industry is becoming more regulated, the Forum heard from John Hughes, Managing Director of South Africa-based bunker trading company SABT. This has translated into law and order being imposed across the region, both to help reduce the piracy threat that has plagued the West African bunker market, tightening customs checks, and an increasing trend toward imposing bunkering licence requirements in individual countries. The latter has tended to reduce the number of suppliers in some areas, which may now be better regulated, but it has reduced competitiveness and thereby restricted market growth, Hughes observed.
20
West Africa is a case in point, where restrictive licensing means the anchorage at Pointe Noire is now dominated by one player, while in Angola, a customs crackdown appears to have put an end to sales of competitively priced marine gas oil (MGO). The West Africa bunker market has also suffered from the general decline in the offshore and seismic vessel market since the drop in oil prices reduced activity. Military vessels remain a steady clientele, as do container ships, though demand from the latter has declined slightly. Piracy, though in decline, is still a consideration in the region, and there are some supply vessels that are not MARPOL compliant. Fuel here can be expensive, delivery is not always timely and delivery infrastructure remains underdeveloped, according to Hughes. On the plus side, some of the European operators that were active offshore West Africa before they were put off by operational challenges in the area, were providing “European standards of service” which more local countries have seen and begun to adopt. East Africa’s bunker market, meanwhile, is much less developed with limited supply options, even less developed supply infrastructure, limited product offerings and higher prices, Hughes noted. Both he and the consultant Steve Hillary, who spoke at the forum, noted that local
suppliers there, such as in Mombasa, have challenges with bureaucracy and taxes leading to high import cost. Additionally, suppliers cannot take risk holding stock due to price fluctuations, and hedging against it is too costly for a small operator, Hillary said. One exception from this in East Africa is Port Luis, Mauritius, which is more developed and competitive, Hughes said. The reason for this became clear when Rajanah Dhaliah, CEO of the State Trading Corporation (STC) in Mauritius, described the drive in Mauritius to promote and develop the country’s bunkering sector and turn it into a petroleum hub. “We are not here to survive, we’re here to thrive,” is the motto in Mauritius. This is supported by the government’s policies both with regards to licensing, encouraging good practices and economic incentives for ships to call for bunkers, such as a 50% reduction on port dues and anchorage fees. STC is the main importer of marine fuels into Mauritius for resale to local oil companies that are licensed to supply, currently four. The government envisions sales of 1 million metric tonnes (mt) annually, to cater for some 30,000 vessels plying the region. Currently only 30% of that target has been achieved, meaning there is ample room for new operators to join, Dhaliah told the forum.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
IBIA AFRICA
A
mong the plans in Mauritius is to build additional tank capacity for storing petroleum products, including more space for storing marine fuels. Current capacity is 43,000 mt for fuel oil and 23,000 mt for MGO. Mauritius also aims to improve the supply infrastructure to improve the quality and speed of service, and envisages introducing the latest ISO 8217 fuel quality specifications as standard. At the same time, the capability for oil spill response should be improved.
South Africa: Frustrations and opportunities Bunker sales in South Africa have been shrinking significantly in recent years, even as shipping volumes and hence potential demand has increased. The bunker market potential here has been frustrated by multiple local factors. These include high port calling costs making it unattractive for ‘bunker only’ callers, product sources being restricted to three local refineries which at times has played havoc with product availability, limited range of fuel types on offer and a reduction in available supply options in Durban and Cape Town. The decline in bunkering calls was documented by Capt Rufus Lekela, Chief Harbour Master in Cape Town, with figures from the Transnet National Port Authority (TNPA).
The sharp fall in Cape Town’s bunkering volumes is chiefly due to a drop in fishing vessels taking fuel there. That, in turn, is due to the port’s supply infrastructure having changed with deliveries now chiefly being undertaken by one bunker barge, while previously fishing vessels used a series of pipelines bringing product directly from the Caltex refinery to the port quay side.
Despite reduced competitiveness in recent years, this makes Durban and Cape Town competitive in terms of value according to Hughes. He also said the “feast or famine” pattern in fuel availability was now a thing of the past, though that could be due to the fact that demand has shrunk, making the refineries better able to control stocks to meet demand on a continual basis.
For those who attended the port tour on the second day of the forum, the reason was clear: the pipelines were old and had fallen into disrepair and would need renovation to make them to make them safe to use. However, the refulleing activity hampered other port operations and the port saw a better commercial opportunity in using that quay space to increase cargo handling capacity, according to Coen Birkenstock, Manager: Corporate Affairs at Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA).
The biggest positive for South Africa, however, is its strategic location on international trade routes. According to Lekela, TNPA and national authorities do want to promote bunkering, by opening for new players and remove trade barriers, while also wanting to ensure that bunker supply and trade benefits the local economy.
There are some positives in the South African bunker market that are undersold, according to Hughes of SABT. This is a market where you get what you pay for and the product is “on spec”, because of reliable barge operators and steady product quality from the three refineries producing fuels for the country’s bunker market.
As such, there is huge interest in the arrival on the South African bunkering scene of Aegean Marine Petroleum, which launched the country’s first ever offshore bunkering at anchorage in Algoa Bay in April this year. The fact that a foreign company has been given the first offshore operating license has caused a lot of local criticism and upset, but the local bunker traders think it is interesting and has given the industry an injection of energy and incentive to be more competitive.
Between 2011 and 2015, the number of ships lifting bunkers in Durban has fallen from a high of 872 to 687 in 2015, though that was an improvement from the lows of 2013 and 2014, according to Lekela’s presentation. Cape Town has taken the worst hit, with the number of vessels taking bunkers down from 820 in 2011 to 367 in 2015.
©
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
Unni Einemo
21
IBIA AFRICA
©
“We saw opportunity to develop something completely new,” Jean-Jose Metey, Executive Director, Aegean Group, told the Forum. He noted that the South African bunker market was restricted by port restrictions on delivery, limited product capacity during refinery maintenance and that the supply of heavy fuel oi in the country is limited to 180 cSt, when most demand from ships globally is for 380 cSt bunkers. Aegean has done things differently, not only by supplying at anchorage rather than inside port, meaning significantly reduced calling costs, but also choosing to import product rather than rely on local sources, and to offer 380 cSt. As no local storage is available for 380 cSt , the company is using a 70,000 dwt Aframax for product storage and has just added a third 6,500 dwt bunker supply tanker to its operation in Algoa Bay. The company chose Algoa Bay because it was best suited for safe offshore supply and strategically located, in particular for ships sailing between Cape Town and Singapore. The anchorage is close to shipping lanes with minimal deviation.
According to Metey, the operation is not competing with existing bunkering services in South African ports. Rather, it is attracting more ships to the area and benefits the local economy by bringing in new demand for auxiliary services. Aegean also supplies by barge in into Port Elizabeth Port and Coega Port which have, until now, not had any supply available by barge. It took around three years for Aegean to set up the new operation, including securing all the permits and licenses from the relevant authorities. That included anti-pollution measures approved by the South African Maritime Safety Administration (SAMSA). Supply licenses in the country’s ports are controlled by Transnet (TNPA), while SAMSA is the authority for approving offshore licenses. If the Algoa Bay operation continues to be a success – so far it has generated monthly sales of about 70,000 mt and merited putting in a third bunker barge – Aegean may build a storage facility in Port Elisabeth. “The floating storage is a transitional measure,” Metey told the forum.
Unni Einemo
The forum heard from SAMSA that it had seen between 70 and 80 applications for providing bunker services offshore in South Africa. There are hints that other operators may succeed in the future, providing they can meet the standards required. What is also clear, from the Transnet (TNPA) talk by Birkenstock on Friday, is that Transnet is investing heavily in upgrading and expanding the country’s port infrastructure and that it believes the country is ideally located to boost its role as a hub for trade by sea. For Cape Town, there are plans to build a cruise terminal that could be open for business already in 2017. The port’s container and liquid bulk throughput capacity is currently underutilized, but there are nevertheless plans to invest in a major expansion of the port’s container handling capacity over the coming decade. If that translates into more shipping activity in South African ports, there should be opportunities to grow marine fuel sales too.
©
22
Unni Einemo
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
IBIA AFRICA
©
Unni Einemo
©
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
Unni Einemo
23
FUELLING THE DEBATE
FUEL FOR THOUGHT What types of fuels issues can we expect the global cap takes effect? Michael Green of Intertek ShipCare offers his perspective
I
f the shipping and bunkering industries could collectively gather around a crystal ball and decipher the swirling mists that hold the keys to the future, life would become so much easier. Dispelling the secrets and speculation regarding the uncertainties of future compliance requirements would allow both industries to move forward hand-in-hand with a clear plan to tackle the hurdles in their paths. However, as crystal balls seem to be in very short supply and humans have, so far, failed to master the art of precognition we will have to make do with speculation and educated guess work. A word of caution: speculation about future solutions, particularly the more innovative or “future proof� compliance solutions, would be somewhat premature at this point in time. This is mainly because many of these newer options and technologies represent longer term projects which will take time to gain traction, whilst the more pressing issue is the here and now.
most owners/operators will be faced with using a product that has been blended in order to create a fuel complying with the 0.50% sulphur limit. This being the case, and still harbouring an urge to try to predict what the future holds, it may prove to be more productive if we were to cast our minds back and take account of the lessons learned during previous regulatory reform. After all, it is not so long ago that we found ourselves in a position where compliance with emission control area requirements meant that the fuel of choice for most was a blended residual product with a maximum sulphur content of 1.00% m/m.
In recounting our experiences with the 1.00% m/m sulphur product the memories retained were not overly favourable regarding the quality of the product, and for many the thought of returning to a situation such as this would fill them with dread. The defining memory which seems to linger surrounds the number of fuels with poor quality characteristics, in particular elevated levels of catalytic fines and poor stability. To put this into perspective we can examine a snapshot of the test data taken from bunkerings in the AmsterdamRotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) region in June 2012 which shows the spread of catalytic fines compared to the sulphur content of the fuels tested.
The bunkering industry finds itself in a situation where the imposition of the 0.50% global sulphur cap could offer a lead time of as little as two and a half years for refiners, suppliers, owners and operators to make the necessary changes to be ready for the reduced limit. In short, apart from a few forward thinking individuals who have already invested in scrubbers or LNG,
24
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
25
FUELLING THE DEBATE
The disconcerting message we take from this particular overview is the prevalence of fuels with a tested sulphur content around 1.00% m/m with levels of cat fines above 40 ppm compared with fuels with higher sulphur content. In examining this data it must be noted that we are not looking to single out a particular region, but to focus on those areas that were particularly affected by the 1.00% m/m sulphur limit at that time. In taking a wider view of the situation and looking at global data, the average levels of catalytic fines in fuels stood around the 27 ppm level. However, as the ECAs only really impacted upon ports around Northern and Western Europe the regional picture was very different. If we consider this in relation to a global requirement rather than simply a regional one, we begin to understand the potential scope of the problems that may be faced. The increased levels of catalytic fines in the 1.00% m/m sulphur fuel was as a direct result of a lack of regulation of the cutter stocks used to create the final blend. Products derived from the fluid catalytic cracking process such as light cycle oils, intermediate and heavy cycle oils were sometimes used in the blending process in an attempt to reduce the sulphur content of the fuel. In many cases it was the use of products like heavy cycle oils which introduced catalytic fines into the blended low sulphur fuel oil.
Heavy cycle oils are drawn off as the “bottom stream” product and can contain significant quantities of residual catalyst. This “slurry oil” as it is commonly known, can have solid concentrations of up to 1500 ppm. In an attempt to remove the bulk of the remaining catalyst the oil is treated by recycling it through the catalyst riser in combination with the cracker feed stock oil. This process “clarifies” the slurry oil, and it is the “clarified slurry oil” that was used as a heavy fuel oil blend component to produce the low sulphur bunker blends for ECAs. Although this process does remove significant quantities of the catalyst fines, often some still remains and ends up in the fuel to be supplied. Similarly, problems were also noted regarding the application of blend/cutter stocks which had an impact on the overall stability of the final product. In simple terms certain fuels simply didn’t “get on” with the cutter stock being used which then impacted upon the inherent chemistry of the fuel such that the stability reserve became compromised. As a result, vessels experienced significant issues with regard to handling, storage and on-board treatment of the fuel. At the very best, cases of instability manifested themselves as an inconvenience to the ship’s crew. At worst, problems were so severe that they could potentially lead to engine blackout.
If we consider the position as it stands currently and think of implications of a return to large scale blending for compliance purposes with the global cap, it is important to note that the cases cited here are just some examples of the more prevalent issues that were witnessed. The reality of the 1.00% m/m sulphur fuels also provided further concerns in relation to possible contamination, combustion issues and reduced flash point. If we do follow this path and return to a situation where large scale blending is to be utilised as one of the main compliance tools we have to learn from these previous experiences. We have to be sure that a strong degree of regulation will be applied with regard to the types of material used for blending and it is only by having this level of regulation that we can apply the lessons learned previously and go some way to mitigating the potential pitfalls that will surely follow. Given our current list of viable options it seems inevitable that blended products will be one of the key compliance tools moving forward. As this is the case the mandate for the bunkering industry suddenly becomes very clear in that we have to move away from the idea of “can we make blending for compliance work?” and ask ourselves: “how do we make blending for compliance work?” Crystal balls won’t be of much help in answering this question. What we need is industry collaboration and research into producing marine fuel blends that are compliant, safe to use and financially more attractive than traditional marine distillate fuels. We’ll keep watching and find ways to decipher the swirling mist.
26
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
Returns for its 5th year in the great city of Athens. This year will once again bring together the region’s leading bunker fuel suppliers, traders, brokers, refiners, ship operators, owners, and other marine fuel industry organizations to discuss the changing landscape of the Mediterranean heading towards 2020. http://www.platts. com/events/emea/mediterranean-bunker-fuel/index
27-29 MARCH 2017 FUJAIRAH BUNKERING & FUEL OIL FORUM The 10th International FUJCON 2017 with international recognition and attendance from 50 countries covering diversified sectors of the bunkering industry, FUJCON has raised Fujairah’s profile as an internationally recognized service Anchorage, being amongst the world’s top three bunkering locations and as a global hub for both oil storage and oil product supply.
DIARY 12-15 MARCH 2017 PANAMA MARITIME XIII This major biennial conference and exhibition is designed to showcase shipping and maritime services in the Americas, will provide a stunning opportunity to visit the giant locks on the newly expanded Panama Canal and to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Panama Flag Registry. The line-up of confirmed speakers includes the Secretary General of the IMO, the head of the Panama Maritime Authority and Administrator of the Panama Canal Authority. Large delegations form the Netherlands and Germany will join 500 plus delegates and exhibitors from throughout the Americas and beyond. lbh@petrospot.com
30 MAY - 2 JUNE 2017 NOR-SHIPPING 2017
20 FEBRUARY 2017 IBIA ANNUAL DINNER 2017 Once again the now world famous IBIA Annual Dinner will be taking place at the opening of IP Week. This is the largest bunkering dinner in the world and is a unique opportunity to host and meet key people in the industry. As usual the event will be held at Grosvenor House Hotel, Park Lane, London W1K 7TN. Book your table and tickets now to avoid disappontment as numbers are strictly limited. http://ibia.net/event/ibia-annual-dinner-2017/
This major shipping event takes place in Oslo and Lillestrøm, Norway. Nor-Shipping 2017 is taking a pro-active approach to the challenges facing the industry, adopting an overall theme of ‘Catalyst for Change’, while dedicating exhibition Hall A to Disruptive Sustainability. Problem to Profit marks another move against convention, tapping into fresh talent while building bridges between established players and future leaders. https://messe.no/en/nor-shipping/
11-15 SEPTEMBER 2017 27 FEBRUARY 2017 EUROPEAN SHIPPING WEEK 2017 BRUSSELS European Shipping Week is intended to be a platform where policy-makers from the main EU institutions will meet and engage with European shipowners and other stakeholders from the shipping sector. The focus is on shipping, in all its different aspects. This week-long series of high level events – features a major conference and Gala Dinner – bringing together the major players in the shipping industry with the primary aim of promoting the strengths of European shipping to legislators in Brussels such as the European Commission, European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. www.petrospot.com/events
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
LONDON INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING WEEK 2017 This, the organisers say, will be the ‘must attend’ event of 2017, offering over 160 industry functions and unique networking opportunities for leaders across all sectors of the international shipping industry – regulators, charterers, ship owners, ship managers, bunker suppliers, lawyers, ship brokers, bankers, insurers, insurance brokers, commodity traders and brokers, ship suppliers, port operators, shipping service providers and many more. The sell-out one-day LISW17 Conference and Gala Dinner, to be held on Thursday September 14, will attract the very highest level government and shipping industry leaders from the UK and around the world to crown what promises to be another amazing week. www.petrospot.com/events
27
DIARY
1-2 DECEMBER 2016 S&P GLOBAL PLATTS MEDITERRANEAN BUNKER FUEL CONFERENCE
INNOVATION
CARNIVAL’S LNG DEAL Shell to supply world’s first LNG-powered cruise ships
S
hell subsidiary Shell Western LNG has signed a framework agreement with Carnival Corporation to supply LNG to fuel two of the world’s largest passenger cruise ships. In a statement, Carnival Corporation said two “next-generation”, LNG-powered cruise ships from the company’s AIDA Cruises and Costa Cruises brands will enter service in 2019 with dual-fuel engines. As part of the agreement, these two ships, built with Carnival Corporation’s next-generation “green cruising” ship design, will utilize Shell’s infrastructure in cruise ports to refuel with LNG throughout their itineraries. The vessels, equipped with dual-fuel engines, are described as the first of a new generation of cruise ships fully powered by LNG both while in port and at sea. Carnival says that the LNG cruise ship project is “an industry first and an environmental breakthrough that will improve air quality with cleaner emissions and produce the most efficient ships in company history.” “We are committed to reducing our air emissions and improving air quality by evaluating new and established solutions such as LNG - an especially promising option because of its environmental and other benefits,” said Tom Strang, senior vice president of maritime affairs for Carnival Corporation.
28
“We are proud to be on the forefront of advancing LNG as a fuel source for the cruise industry and creating an entirely new model for powering next-generation cruise ships. We look forward to a productive partnership with Shell, which has the experience and shared commitment to quality, safety and operational efficiency needed to help us bring this innovative LNG initiative to life with the first fully LNG-powered ships in the global cruise industry.” The new ships will be the first in the cruise industry use LNG to generate 100% of the ship’s power both in port and on the open sea. “We have been working closely with Carnival to get to this point in our commercial partnership,” said Lauran Wetemans, Shell’s General Manager Downstream LNG. “Working together from an early stage is critical in helping the transition to cleaner LNG cruising. This is a unique partnership that will contribute to a robust and reliable LNG fuel supply chain, along with opportunities for future growth.” This agreement builds on the partnership established between Carnival Corporation’s AIDA Cruises brand and Shell in April of this year to supply the AIDAprima ship with LNG to power the vessel while docked. The AIDAprima is the first cruise ship in the world to use LNG while in port, leading to a major reduction in emissions.
Carnival says: “Additionally, the agreement furthers the realization of Carnival Corporation’s LNG efforts that began in 2015 with AIDAsol becoming the first cruise ship in the world to be supplied with power by an LNG hybrid barge, which also saw major benefits while in port.” Carnival has seven fully LNG-powered ships on order, for operation by four of its 10 global cruise lines. In addition to the ships covered by the Shell deal, two of the newbuildings are for Carnival Cruise Line, with delivery dates expected in 2020 and 2022, and one is for P&O Cruises UK with an expected delivery date in 2020. The remaining two vessels will be for the Costa Cruises and AIDA Cruises brands and are expected to enter service in 2021.
‘Pay as you clean’ scrubber deal Union Maritime and Pacific Green Technologies Marine agree innovative payment deal for emissions control system. UK-based independent ship owner and operator Union Maritime Ltd (UML) says it has secured an innovative deal to pay for an emissions control system through the cost savings it delivers. Under the agreement, Pacific Green Technologies Marine Ltd (PGTM) will fit its ENVI-MarineTM said to be worth almost US$2 million free of charge to Union Maritime’s 13,000 dwt chemical tanker Westminster in the first quarter of 2017.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
INNOVATION
The system will be fitted to the vessel’s main engine where it will remove sulphur dioxide from the exhaust gas emissions to a level that meets the Emissions Control Area (ECA) requirements. Union Maritime says that doing this allows the UML vessel to continue to burn the lower cost heavy fuel oil within the ECA, which is expected to generate savings of around US$2,700 a day. Under the energy management agreement, UML guarantees to operate the vessel for a minimum of 145 days each year in ECAs for the duration of the agreement. UML will then pay the full cost savings that the system generates to PGTM up to a total of US$1,995,000. Assuming this arrangement is successful, UML has agreed to purchase up to a further ten systems from PGTM.
Hydrocurrent is a new-technology system developed by Calnetix and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Marine Machinery and Engine Company (MHI-MME). It uses an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) process with a proprietary turbo-generator to convert thermal energy from an engine’s jacket water into usable electricity for shipboard consumption. The system was first introduced in 2014 and underwent successful classification society tests with Lloyd’s Register and Class NK.
“The commissioning tests and operational data reveal the Hydrocurrent installation on Arnold Maersk met or exceeded expectations,” said Calnetix CEO Vatche Artinian. “It consistently produced 110 to 115 kW of electric power to the ship’s grid throughout the voyage, during which the crew adjusted the cooling water flow into the condenser receiving tank downward by reducing power to the water pump. When operated at full cooling water flow, the system put out 125 kW.”
The first ship installation took place in April 2016 on the ABS-classed AP Møller containership Arnold Maersk.
Calnetix says it is moving toward full commercialization of the Hydrocurrent technology. The company announced an agreement with Tokyo Boeki for manufacturing the Hydrocurrent system earlier this year. It will be marketed by MHI-MME through its worldwide distribution channels.
Union Maritime’s managing director, Laurent Cadji, said: “Union Maritime takes its environmental responsibilities extremely seriously and we are determined to comply with all current and future controls on vessel emissions. At UML, we are always seeking new and innovative ways of operating and this arrangement with PGTM offers a smart solution to complying with the requirements of operating within the SECA regions. We look forward to working closely with PGTM in the future.” PGTM’s chairman and chief executive, Neil Carmichael, said: “We are delighted to be working with UML and this deal represents a substantial milestone for PGTM’s growth strategy. We are confident that we can deliver substantial long-term savings for the company.”
Heat recovery system trialled Turbo-generator converts thermal energy from an engine’s jacket water into usable electricity. Calnetix Technologies has just released a White Paper describing the operational results from the first shipboard installation of its new Hydrocurrent system.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
Carnival’s LNG-fuelled cruise ship new building project. ©Carnival Corporation
29
30
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
31
IBIA EVENTS JANUARY
FEBRUARY 20th 20th 21st 22nd 27th Feb-3rd March MARCH 7-9th 12th-15th 20th-22nd APRIL 12th
26th 27th MAY
Maritime Week Dubai: IBIA Forum Fujairah development
Dubai Fujairah
IBIA AGM IBIA Dinner IBIA Forum with UK Chamber of Shipping IBIA Training MFM training for shipowners and Buyers European shipping week - IBIA forum
Naval Club London, UK Grosvenor House London, UK London, UK London, UK Brussels
IBIA Regional Forum: Caribbean, Jamaica Panama Maritime XIII World Conference & Exhibition with IBIA Bunker Forum IBIA Bunker session CMA Shipping 2017 (IBIA branch meeting)
Caribbean, Jamaica Panama Panama Stamford
IBIA in Africa AGM and Exco meeting IBIA Board Meeting IBIA Regional Forum: Mediterranean (Canaries or Malta) IBIA Asia Forum (Sea Asia) IBIA Asia Gala Dinner
Cape Town, South Africa London, UK Mediterranean Singapore Singapore
Maritime Week Americas (Petrospot) IBIA Training (Basic Bunker Course Eng & Spanish)
Curacao
IBIA Regional Forum: Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
IBIA Regional Forum: LISW IBIA training MFM and Bunkering courses
London, UK London, UK
African Ports Evolution IBIA Bunker Training
Durban, South Africa
IBIA Convention
Singapore
Social Event: Singapore, Asia Social Event: London, UK
Singapore, Asia London, UK
JUNE SEPTEMBER 11th-15th OCTOBER 2nd-5th NOVEMBER 6th-10th DECEMBER
London 32
Gibraltar
Singapore
Cape Town
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
COMPANY NEWS
THE PORT OF TENERIFE An ideal strategic location
T
he Ports of Tenerife are in an ideal strategic location and are connected to 278 ports around the world making them an International operation centre ideal for transshipment. Tenerife itself has two large container terminals with more than 1,200 m of berthing line, 25 hectares of area and draughts of up to 19 m also 3 ro-ro ramps with a total capacity of 875.000 TEU. The port also has 6 Super-post Panamax cranes, 1 Post Panamax crane and 2 Panamax cranes. There are special discounts for transshipments of up to 60% for more than 15,000 TEU and 50% for 15,000 TEU. In 2017 a new port will be open in Tenerife and will have a container terminal of 21 hectares. The total surface area of the new port will be 143 hectares and will have a 24 m draft.
The port of Tenerife offers a pilot service, mooring operators, harbour tugs, as well as a flat tariff all year around. There is also a port inspection centre, container scanners, port security and an advanced vessel traffic system. Its stevedores average 30 of movements an hour. There is also a ship repair centre and a 40% discount for vessels in minor repair or inactive. The anchorage zone provides a naturally protected area covering over 6 nautical miles. Bunker supply for 24 hours a day and 365 days a year from ship to ship, with double-hull tank barges, also a pipeline to ship and trucks to ship. In 2017 the port of Tenerife will also supply liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Tenerife is a Free Trade Zone; full exemption of customs duties and taxes for freight traffic to and from third countries; suspension of tariff and tax obligations of the goods until their consumption or free circulation in the European Community territory. The port of Tenerife is a European territory port with regular services between Tenerife and West African Ports among others. There are also 7 marinas with space for 1,189 moorings. In 2016 its new cruise terminal was inaugurated with over 9000 m2 that offers every cruise passengers needs.
NEW ERA FOR PANAMA CANAL Bunker suppliers anticipate new opportunities as key waterway accepts larger vessels but there are also new challenges
T
he inaugural transit of the Neopanamax vessel COSCO Shipping Panama through the Agua Clara Locks on Panama’s Atlantic Coast to the Cocoli Locks on the Pacific side ushered in a new era. The US$5.25 billion project included the construction of a new set of locks on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the waterway and the excavation of more than 150 million cubic meters of material, creating a second lane of traffic and doubling the waterway’s capacity. During the official inauguration ceremony, Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela and Panama Canal Administrator and CEO Jorge L Quijano spoke to a crowd of more than 25,000 jubilant Panamanians,
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
Canal employees, heads of state and dignitaries from around the world, Canal customers, shipping and trade executives, and nearly 1,000 journalists. “Canal users can be assured that we’ll continue to support the Panama Canal Authority and our port operators to provide them a world class service and strengthen our logistics system by creating the necessary incentives and conditions to give added value to our inter-oceanic route,” said Mr Varela. “More than 100 years ago, the Panama Canal connected two oceans. Today, we connect the present and the future,” said Mr Quijano.
For the bunkering industry increased throughput and larger vessels bring the possibility of more business. However there will be challenges. Faster transits also mean less waiting time which can be used to take bunkers. Crucially suppliers will have to offer competitive prices to vessels that have multiple options for bunkering in the Caribbean or in the US.
Inaugural transit of expanded Panama Canal ©ACP
33
COMPANY NEWS
TANGER MED Your bunker call on the strait of Gibraltar
•
15 MT : Annual Handling capacity
•
530’000 m3 of storage Capacity
•
Dedicated Oil Terminal operated by Horizon Tangiers Terminals
•
Multiple anchorage areas directly on the strait
Tanger Med Port is situated on a strategic location on the North African coast of Morocco at the entrance to the Strait of Gibraltar where the Mediterranean Sea meets the Atlantic Ocean. Located at the crossroads of major maritime routes, Tanger Med offers dedicated bunkering facility only 14 km from the European Union, Algeciras and Gibraltar. Tanger Med Port includes an Oil terminal, managed by Horizon Tangiers Terminals with a capacity of over 530,000m3, fully equipped to provide a bunker service by barge in the port and within the two well situated anchorage areas: •
‘Alcazar – Tanger Med West’: situated in front of Tanger Med Port within the strait
•
‘Fnideq-Tanger Med East’: situated below the east part of the port
34
Both anchorage areas offer a great number of anchorage points. Both anchorage areas offer no congestion for bunkering and service to ships and within reach of transiting shipping lines of the straight.
Further information on the bunkering activity within these anchorage areas can be provided by the Port Authority of Tanger Med www.tmpa.ma and your usual Aegean Marine Petroleum commercial teamshttp://www.ampni.com
CARACTERISTICS OF FNIDEQ AND ALCAZAR ANCHORAGE AREAS: •
• • • •
•
Bunkering activities under way in both anchorage areas and inside the port Up to 17 anchorage points Adequate sea ground for anchorage Good meteorological and sea conditions Other services available (crew change, ship chandelling, spare parts transportation….) Low congestion
Alcazar The bunkering activity in the port and the anchorage areas, supplied and managed by Aegean Marine Petroleum has developed tremendously since its inception in 2011 and except a steady growth due to special conditions applicable for bunker calls only.
11 anchorage points
Fnideq 6 anchorage points
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
COMPANY NEWS
GALP - ENERGY TO CONNECT THE WORLD If the Atlantic is on your route, count on our energy
G
alp, and its subsidiary companies including Petrogal SA, is the only fully integrated energy group in Portugal. Its activities range from oil and natural gas exploration and production to the refining and distribution of petroleum products, the distribution and marketing of natural gas and the generation of electrical power. It has more experience than any other Portuguese company in the energy sector, with a successful business history that stretches back over 100 years. The company entered the stock market in 2006. Galp is the market leader in Portugal in the petroleum product distribution business and has a significant presence in Spain. This business includes the sale of refined products to direct customers, namely to the retail sector and filling stations, and to the business or wholesale segment: transportation, aviation, industry, contractors, marine and lubricants.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
In what concerns the bunkers marine business, the company supplies over 1 million MT of all fuels for ships, distillates, residuals and high quality lubricants. These products are exclusively produced in Galp refineries, meeting the latest ISO standards and all international environmental policies. Distillates (MGO) and residual fuels are supplied by barge (three barges with total capacity of 10.5 kT), by pipeline and RTW.
Galp is able to offer special conditions for bunkers only call in Lisbon and Sines. Calling Lisbon represents a short deviation, it is a sheltered port with protected anchorage (inside port limits) during the whole year for safe bunkering by barge. Sines is also able to offer special conditions for bunkers only call, the conditions are similar. The reduction on the calling costs and having the refinery in Sines make this port very competitive.
Galp is also cofounder and member of Lubmarine - a worldwide organization specialized and dedicated to marine lubricants fully integrated from product development, supply chain, marketing and sales. It is present in 100 countries where each company member follows strictly all the procedures that concerns technical, performance and safety. Lubmarine provides the shipping industry with the best marine lubricants and greases, associated with first-class service. Galp produces the right lubricant to your ship and supplies at the right port.
Supply your vessel at the ports of Lisbon, SetĂşbal and Sines with Galp. We look forward to receiving your call.
+351 217 240 654/952 +351 210 039 032 bunkers@galpenergia.com galp.com
35
COMPANY NEWS
GAZPROMNEFT MARINE BUNKER Analyzing the restrictions-driven market changes
G
azpromneft Marine Bunker Ltd, one of the biggest bunker suppliers in Russia, conducted the analysis of the bunkering market changes that occurred as a result of the of MARPOL restrictions for sulphur in emission control areas (ECA). The results of the research have been introduced to the company’s customers as well as other experts within the industry. Gazpromneft Marine Bunker presents a different view to the role of a bunker supplier. The company believes that research and analysis would help not only to produce the right strategic decisions but also to contribute to the development of informational environment within the bunkering market. Therefore the company conducts serious researches aimed at identification of new market trends and the customers’ demands. The in-depth study of possibility of expanding the range of its products by adding the new ecological fuels to it was initiated several years ago. Anticipating market changes forced by the influence of ecological regulations the company works on the development of LNG as a promising bunker fuel, and in 2015 a new conventional ULSFO fuel meeting the MARPOL sulphur restrictions was introduced to its customers. At the end of 2014, having evaluated the lack of certainty and information at the market, Gazpromneft Marine Bunker started a long-term research project to provide the detailed market analysis. The project consists of three one-year stages with each of them designed to reach a specific set of goals: determine the general opinions of ship-owners and evaluate their initial approach towards the use of ULSFO; expand the range of research participants and determine the ULSFO segment potential strength; consider the options and perspective of alternate fuels’ development and evaluate the new market tendencies.
36
Not only ship-owners, but trading companies, bunker fuel suppliers and representatives of the mass-media have been participants of the 2016 research. Thanks to their high involvement the Gazpromneft Marine Bunker’s research crew managed to formulate some principal assessments on the specifics of current interaction with ecological fuels and the future development of the new market segment. •
•
•
•
•
•
ULSFO does not threaten the marine engines if proper consulting is provided by the supplier and the vessel crew follows the instructions while using these fuels; There is no significant lack of ULSFO in sea ports, notably of Russia and the ARA area; Despite the narrowing of discount between ULSFO and MGO the ultralow fuels have their price appeal due to global oil prices decrease; Despite the opinion that Europe excels Russia in terms of adopting new products at the market Russian suppliers demonstrate active stance and flexibility in solving problems and answering the market challenges; The hypothesis that possible rise of demand for scrubbers would lower the demand for ULSFO have been proved wrong; ULSFO has its own set of advantages – it improves the ship-owners’ image due to its environment-friendly stature and lowers the marine engines’ cylinder-piston group wear due to its “washing” ability.
There are two basic scenarios for development of demand for the ULSFO fuels. The first suggests that the product will be sustainably consumed within the reality of current situation in global economy. The second assumes the significant increase of demand for ULSFO with the prices shift and the MGO quotations growth.
The question of fuels quality monitoring and their certification is still important and has to be solved. The research participants indicated that would provide another boost for ULSFO popularity. At the end of 2015 Gazpromneft Marine Bunker seized the second position among the Russia’s bunkering market ULSFO segment which is considered a positive achievement. Activities within the new market segment helped the company to establish a reputation for not only being a just fuel supplier but a market expert able to provide competent to the customers. •
The formation and consolidation of knowledge of new products and technologies is the current trend within the bunkering market, - Gazpromneft Marine Bunker’s CEO Andrei Vasiliev states. – It becomes especially essential for market participants when situations demanding innovative solutions arise. Along with the ULSFO and LNG segments development our company shares its knowledge and experience with the customers.
Gazpromneft Marine Bunker works on strengthening of consumer confidence, notably by providing the informational support for the fuels that are being offered, by improving the professional competences of its trading and commercial specialists, by preparing the new ULSFO product to enter the market and by planning the next stage of MARPOL research project for 2017. The current year analysis results indicate how the ideal scheme of co-operation between the market participants should look like and function with full effect. And Gazpromneft Marine Bunker would strive to meet this impression.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
COMPANY NEWS
COPEC MARINE FUELS Company Profile
T
he Group’s principal activities are fuel distribution, forestry products, fishing activities, and mining and electricity investments and Research and Development (R&D).
Our compromise to be the “first in service”, has led us to be able to demonstrate concepts such as JIT (Just in time) and Kaizen (CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT).
Our Fleet The fuel sector distributes fuels in all its forms: gas, fuel and lubricants. Copec controls approximately over 64% of the fuel market through more than 650 gas stations as well as industrial customers. Copec started as a petroleum company in 1934 and initiated its bunker service in 1970. At first, deliveries were by truck; however, in 2000, Copec incorporated bunker supplies by barge, consolidating our market position. Today, Copec Marine Fuels has barges of last generation and leads the bunker market with over 70% of the Market Share. Copec Marine Fuels became a member of the IBIA Corporate Association on 21 December 2004.
Copec operates 3 bunker ships : Doña Ana (3,200 MT IFO 380 + 610 M3 MGO LS), Don Gonzalo (4,100 MT IFO 380 + 720 M3 MGO LS) and Don Pancho (4,100 MT + 720 M3 MGO LS) which cover central and south ports of Chile. For other ports, Copec Marine Fuels offers the service of trucks and pipelines with the purpose to supply any enquiry it may have along the coast of Chile.
This year Copec Marine Fuels, will increase its fleet with one more Bunker Ship that will supply vessels in the extreme south of Chile. The purpose of this new Bunker Ship named Tamina, is to supply vessels, specially cruises that navigates through Ushuaia, Antarctica, Punta Arenas and the Falkland islands. This Lady Ice Class with double hull, will increase the opportunity to Bunker MGO LS and DAO, with a maximum Capacity of 1450 Cubic meters. Puerto Williams is 40 kms far away from Ushuaia and it’s a very safe port for bunkering. For cruises with less than 150 mts of length, BT Tamina will be able to bunker at berth. For bigger cruises BT Tamina is able to supply in 4 different anchor points.
Our Service COPEC MARINE FUELS has always been leader of the Chilean fuel market as it has given its customers the best service and quality of its products. Today´s successful operations rely on highly competent service. We realize that buyers and supplier are closely related, COPEC offers round the clock service, as you needed. Our operation have become a performance and standard and reached a leading market position, through trustworthy and solid business relationships.
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
37
COMPANY NEWS
THE PORT OF CEUTA Bunkering in the Strait of Gibraltar for more than 100 years
W
ith its strategic location in Africa, this Spanish port of call maintains an important geographic position for passengers, products and goods destined for Africa and Europe.
•
It is one of the top ports in the Strait of Gibraltar for bunkering services. Tax-free bunkering and zero duty on goods passing through the port deliver a financial advantage. We can offer a quick turnaround owing to efficiencies of scale. The port boasts state-of-the-art facilities for superb ship servicing – specialising in medium-sized ships. The port complies with the Cronos project for rapid response and prevention of accidental contamination of the port environment.
•
• •
•
The entire economy of Ceuta depends directly or indirectly on the port and its activities.
Due to its geographical location, it is also the entry and exit point for most goods and provides the foundation for most commercial activities.
Liquid bulk traffic, which includes the loading and unloading of fuel and the supply of ships, represents over half of the port’s traffic.
The existing infrastructure is excellent for the bunkering of ships. This reflects the importance of this activity for the port, which supplies nearly one million tonnes of bunker fuel.
This is a reflection of the favourable times we are currently enjoying in bunkering.
Quality service is what sets the Port of Ceuta apart from its competitors. This can be found throughout the facility, in areas including infrastructure, machinery and labour force. The port’s objective is to attract and meet the needs of medium tankers using intermediate fuels. This unique specialisation in the servicing and supply of medium moored boats has no equal in the Strait of Gibraltar. The port is also considered to be the least congested in the Strait.
Most of the port infrastructure is exclusively designated for this side of our business. Therefore, we can confidently say that this is our specialisation. Within the Spanish port system, we are an indispensable reference point for this type of traffic. For more information on how we can meet your energy and port needs, please visit www.puertodeceuta.com
Port Authority of Ceuta Muelle España, s/n 51001 – CEUTA (SPAIN) Tel: +34 (0)956 52700 Fax: +34 (0)956 527001
38
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016
TANGER MED YOUR BUNKER CALL ON THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR
Alcazar 11 anchorage points
Fnideq 6 anchorage points
Further information on the bunkering activity within these anchorage areas can be provided by the Port Authority of Tanger Med www.tmpa.ma and your usual Aegean Marine Petroleum commercial teams http://www.ampni.com .
40
World Bunkering CONVENTION EDITION 2016