World Bunkering Spring 2020

2019 Spring 2020

THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE OF IBIA

2020 SO FAR SO GOOD

BUT WATCH OUT FOR THE UNEXPECTED

INSIDE THIS ISSUE: SHIPPING INDUSTRY PROPOSES R&D LEVY ON BUNKERS VLSFO AND BLACK CARBON UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES? RUSSIA PUTS OFF 0.50% FOR INLAND FLEET

Dear Reader

A couple of months ago I felt confident that the bulk of the content of the Spring Issue of World Bunkering would be related to the implementation of the IMO 0.50% sulphur limit. And, broadly speaking, that is the way it has turned out.

Most of our pages deal, to a greater or lesser extent, with some aspect of IMO 2020.

What I did not foresee was that the use of VLSFO would come under sustained attack from environmental campaigners with claims these new blends will cause an increase in emissions of black carbon.

In our Environment pages IBIA Director Unni Einemo takes an in-depth look at this debate. As she points out, if there is substance to these claims, it will not be the first time well intended initiatives to improve the environment have had unintended consequences.

I also, of course, had no inkling that by the time this issue went to press a new lethal strain of a virus would have almost brought China to standstill and would already be impacting the shipping and bunkering industries.

Just before I started writing this, I watched a television news report of a cruise ship alongside the quay in Yokohama. More than 60 of the passengers had tested positive for the new coronavirus and had been taken to hospital. The rest were confined to their cabins and the ship was going nowhere. What the viewing public would probably not have noticed was that a bunker barge was alongside. I’ve no idea whether it actually delivered bunkers.

But if it did it could be a while before that cruise ship takes its next stem.

In our Scrubbers report, Tim Smith, Director of Oil and Tanker Markets at Maritime Strategies International, notes: “The coronavirus is having a wider impact on oil markets reducing global demand and prices.” He says that this is likely to drive bunker prices down.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

It still too early to tell whether the coronavirus will be contained or become a pandemic, and just how damaging it will be to world trade and thus to shipping and bunkering.

It is also premature to say how the bunker industry will look once it has got used to the 0.50% sulphur limit. However, the first indications are that there have been relatively few big problems. As expected, prices have been volatile. Local bottlenecks have cause spikes in VLSFO prices. During January, shipowners who fitted scrubbers have made big cost saving compared to using VLSFO or MGO. Our Scrubbers report looks at this in detail and also notes that Australia is allowing the use of open loop scrubbers in its ports, but with strict conditions attached Our geographical features, on Panama, Caribbean and Western Mediterranean all indicate that VLSFO is widely available.

It is less clear how quickly port states will enforce the 0.50% limit. Some were on the case right away. Others were still getting domestic legislation in place.

But, as Unni explains in our Legal pages, determining whether a ship’s fuel complies with the 0.50% sulphur limit or not is less than straightforward. The question ‘When can you say that a maximum limit has been exceeded?’ does not have any easy answer.

With the need to comply with IMO 2020 and the increasing threat of coronavirus to contend with, it might be difficult to focus on the really big change that is approaching. That is the move to zero carbon within two, perhaps at most three, decades.

This issue’s Environment News and Innovation pages are full of developments that are taking us down the road to zero carbon. In Environment News, take a look at the DecarbonICE project which aims to freeze the CO2 in a ship’s exhaust, form the resulting dry ice into streamlined blocks and dump them into the deep ocean.

Carbon? No problem? Over the wall, into the oggin, bye-bye, job done!

Science fantasy? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Whether or not that particular project will come to fruition, there is no doubt that shipping has no choice over whether to go for zero carbon or not. When I interviewed International Chamber of Shipping deputy secretary general Simon Bennett, he stressed that particular “penny had dropped”. He was very clear that shipping understands the threat of global warming. The industry’s proposal for a research and development levy on every tonne of bunkers supplied worldwide shows just how seriously the issue is being taken.

Finally, I mentioned unintended consequences earlier. They also form the underlying theme to our Viewpoint piece, by weather routeing expert Huw Davies.

He recounts a case where a ship was advised by its weather routeing service to take shelter but was instructed by charterers to proceed into a storm. For 72 hours, the vessel made revolutions for 12 knots but made good a speed of only between 4 and 6 knots. She could have sailed 24 hours later, avoided the severe weather and arrived at the same time, burning 30% less fuel.

He says the problem is that owners and charterers don’t trust each other. Now there’s a surprise. But, to end on an upbeat note, Capt. Davies puts forward proposals that could greatly improve mutual trust. Let’s hope they are taken forward.

David Hughes Editor 3

EDITOR’S LETTER

DEALING WITH THE UNEXPECTED

CONTENT 7

Chairman’s Letter

9

Director’s Report

11

IBIA Events

12

IBIA Events New Decade - New Horizons

17

IBIA Asia Transitioning into a new chapter

20

IBIA Africa New Decade, New Era

28

Interview Getting serious

30

Industry News Russia stays with HSFO for inland shipping

32

Innovation Cleaner combustion

Publisher & Designer: Constructive Media ibia@constructivemedia.co.uk Editor: David Hughes anderimar.news@googlemail.com Deputy Editor: Unni Einemo unni@ibia.net Project Manager: Alex Corboude alex@worldbunkering.net On behalf of: IBIA Ltd Office 239 New Broad Street House 35 New Broad Street London, EC2M 1NH, UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7417 1803 Fax: +44 (0) 20 3397 3865 Email: ibia@ibia.net Website: www.ibia.net

34

66

38

68

42

71

Western Mediterranean Pull your SOx down!

Panama Shallow waters

Viewpoint What is ‘good weather’?

45

Caribbean Regulating the future

49

Scrubbers Scrubber-fitted ships are “early winners”

54

Legal Legal uncertainties highlighted

57

Fuel quantity Going the whole way

59

Environment Unintended consequences

IT Plotting a digital future

LNG LNG “competitive” for VLCCs

Russian News “No more subsidies for VLSFO production”

73

Equipment & Services Emission data capture project

75

Lubricants Challenging conditions

76

Company News

83

New Members

84

Diary

86

Next Issue

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.

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.

Constructive Media 50 George Street, Pontypool NP4 4PR Tel: 01495 740050 Email: ibia@constructivemedia.co.uk www.worldbunkering.net

6

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

Happy New Year Ladies and Gentlemen and welcome to 2020!

I

t is an honour and a privilege to welcome you to the long-anticipated Post-2020 watershed.

As an industry, we have passed the threshold that was feared by so many, for so long and yet despite the misgivings (and I appreciate that it is still very early days) we seem to have traversed this hurdle and emerged on the other side in reasonable shape.

This is not to suggest that the transition into 2020 was an anti-climax - not by any stretch of the imagination. It has been wholly apparent over the last few years just how much effort has been made by all sectors of the industry to ensure the transition was a relatively smooth one.

Similarly, we can’t gloss over the fact that a number of problems have been apparent in the early days following the reduction of the global sulphur cap most worryingly the continued confusion regarding what constitutes an “off spec” sulphur result when a commercial sample is analysed and the relevance of a commercial sample compared to a statutory sample.

However, these are just the kind of problems that IBIA has been able to help its members with in the past and will continue to do in the coming months.

This letter is something of a personal landmark for me because, it is my final letter to you as the Chairman of IBIA. Having completed my two years tenure, I must bid you all a very fond farewell before I pass on the baton of responsibility.

It is extremely difficult to believe that six years have passed since I joined the IBIA board but the one thing I can say for certain is it has been a truly fantastic and rewarding experience.

In looking back at the time I’ve spent with IBIA I am happy to say that it is now a very different entity, compared to what it was when I joined the board six years ago and I am sure that the coming years will see this evolution continue further.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

You may think this is a strange comment, but in the everchanging world in which we live, we have to consider the wants and needs of the membership which IBIA serves, and evolve to ensure we remain relevant.

And it is on this particular note that I would like to offer my final thoughts.

It is hugely gratifying to see IBIA members engage in this manner and it is with this in mind that the plans for IBIA’s future have been made.

IBIA has changed significantly in recent years and has grown in both stature and relevance within the bunkering industry.

Whilst it would be nice to say that this has been a direct result of my influence and guidance it would be wholly untrue.

The real reason IBIA is in the position it is today is because of the combined efforts of a range of different individuals who dedicate their time to ensure IBIA continues to function. The hard work and dedication of all members of the secretariat has made my job as chairman easy and ensured that one of the core functions of IBIA - a strong personal interaction with the membership – has been at the forefront of everything IBIA does.

The continued plans for growth have been mapped out with one very specific aim in mind – ensuring IBIA is an association that is accessible to all within the bunkering industry.

Again, you may think this is an odd statement to make and would subsequently question whether, in its current form, IBIA isn’t open to all?

I am very lucky to have been able to work with Unni, as director of the association, whose unbounded enthusiasm and dedication has been reflected in the evergrowing contributions IBIA has been able to make at industry forums and seminars as well as the increased number of IBIA’s own events.

However, the most rewarding aspect has to be the heightened status IBIA has attained at the IMO given the contributions that Unni has been able to make in the development of key industry practices.

Not forgetting the recent past, we must also acknowledge the contributions of Robin Meech, former IBIA Chairman, and Justin Murphy, former CEO, both of whom played a key role in laying the foundations for the IBIA we have today.

I must also offer special thanks to a group of select individuals who, although not employed by IBIA or represented on the IBIA board, dedicate their time to support the association. It is this kind of support, offered by members of the association that really makes a difference.

The answer to that question is a simple one - IBIA is of course open to all comers.

However, the idea is to develop an association that has a much broader reach with a greater strategic regional diversity to ensure that anyone in bunkering, from those individual members who may only have a local or regional focus to our huge corporate members, no matter where they are in the world, have the capability to interact with IBIA and address industry issues which matter to them.

This is truly an ambitious task, and I am delighted to say that this project will be spearheaded by the team of incoming Chairman Henrik Zederkof and Vice Chairman Timothy Cosulich – both of whom, I’m delighted to say, share the kind of drive an enthusiasm needed to realise these ambitions.

All that now remains, before I sign off, is to thank everyone involved with IBIA for their support and to wish you all a happy and prosperous 2020.

Michael Green Chairman 7

CHAIRMAN’S LETTER

WATERSHED EVENTS

YOUR PARTNER OF CHOICE

FOR FUELLING THE VESSELS (THAT TRANSPORTS THE CARGO & PASSENGERS) ACROSS THE GLOBE GPS Bunkers is a physical bunker supplier in Fujairah, Khorfakkan and Kalba. GPS is the only supplier with control on the full value chain including product, tanks, storage terminals, and owned barges.

GPS Bunkers serves some of the world’s biggest ship owners / charterers and prominent names of shipping industry. Operating our owned fleet of bunker barges includes FNSA 10 (5,200 MT LSFO & 1,000 MT LSGO); FNSA 11 (6,000 MT LSFO & 200 MT LSGO) and FNSA 12 which will be of equivalent quantity and is in a process to commence operations. We have our own inhouse technical and ship management division to manage bunkers barges, yachts and pilot boats.

WHY GPS BUNKERS? Supplying IMO 2020 compliant Marine Fuel In 2019 alone, GPS handled more than 2.2 million tonnes Marine Fuel Owned Infrastructure – Oil Storage Terminal and bunker barges +971 922 35249 marketing@gpsbunkers.com www.gpsbunkers.com 8

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

LESSONS FOR THE NEW DECADE Here we are in 2020 and, unlike the Titanic, we are still afloat

W

hy do I start my report mentioning one of the worst tragedies in maritime history? Titanic, the world’s largest ship at the time, sank on her maiden voyage in April 1912 after hitting an iceberg, resulting in huge loss of life. This disaster triggered major improvements in maritime safety regulations, including the establishment in 1914 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).

The SOLAS Convention still governs maritime safety under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization.

I mention the Titanic because, as the global maritime industry looked ahead to the huge reduction in the sulphur limit for bunkers, doom and gloom often prevailed about what a disaster IMO 2020 would be.

It appeared we were headed for a colossal iceberg. However, a month into the new decade, IMO 2020 has gone better than many had expected.

At IBIA, we worked relentlessly during 2019 to help the industry navigate safely through this monumental challenge and steer clear of ‘icebergs’. Preparation is key and our message since the start of 2019 was for all stakeholders to plan, prepare and practice for the transition to IMO 2020. We must of course remain alert. There are still icebergs in the sea but when we know about them, we can mitigate the risks.

IBIA’s efforts made a positive difference at the IMO in preparing its framework for ensuring consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit, and through working with a range of partners to provide advice and information to industry stakeholders in multiple ways, including conferences, publications and newsletters. It was a real recognition of IBIA’s role, and a huge honour for myself, when Lloyd’s List named me as one of 10 women influencing shipping in 2019, saying: “As the voice of the global bunker industry, with a remit to represent all stakeholders across the industry value chain,

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

the IBIA director has found herself this year as the de facto spokesperson for all things related to the 2020 sulphur cap. Given the lingering industry concerns regarding fuel quality, availability and enforcement, her uniquely insightful guidance at the helm of IBIA has never been more necessary.”

So, are we ‘done’ with IMO 2020? Of course not. It is early days and the full impacts remain to be seen in terms of cost to industry and associated credit concerns, on fuel quality and safety and the overall effect on the environment.

On the positive side, we can expect better air quality and probably reduced overall carbon emissions due to efforts to reduce fuel use to keep costs down. There may be environmental downsides which we will continue to grapple with in the coming years.

Many of you will have seen claims that VLSFO will cause an increase in black carbon emissions because of a highly aromatic nature. IBIA believes these claims are based on flawed assumptions, but remains committed to working with the IMO to ensure the subject is examined in a disciplined, scientific way to identify appropriate and proportionate measures.

As IBIA’s IMO Representative, much of my time is taken up by contributing – with input from IBIA members to IMO’s work on addressing a range of issues relating to marine fuels.

It hasn’t stopped with the sulphur limit; it could in fact be said that it has triggered new work streams. One of these is addressing concerns around fuel oil safety, starting with calls for enhancing compliance with the 60°C flashpoint limit on the supply side. IMO is also working on developing a new chapter of the IGF Code specifically for oil-based fuels with a flashpoint below 60°C. These subjects are dealt with under the SOLAS Convention.

Reductions of harmful emission to air, meanwhile, are dealt with under MARPOL Annex VI, which was first adopted in 1997.

Sometimes, environmental regulations have the potential to impact the safety of ship and crew and IMO has to look at the whole picture. Now, more than 100 years after the Titanic disaster, there is a new concern about icebergs. The world’s ice-cover, in particular in the Arctic, is melting at an alarming rate.

IMO has committed to an ambitious decarbonisation goal for global shipping and begun the complex work of identifying how to achieve it.

IMO 2020 has shown us how resourceful the global marine fuel sector can be in finding solutions, and the value of working with trusted partners. Let’s take these lessons with us into the new decade to help us tackle even greater challenges to ensure shipping can continue to serve global trade while minimising its negative impact on the ecosystems that sustain us all.

Unni Einemo Director IBIA unni@ibia.net 9

2020 IBIA EVENTS PROGRAMME MARCH 10 11 & 12 3, 5, 10, 12, 24, 26 APRIL 7, 9, 21 MAY 12, 14, 28 JUNE 9,11,16,18 SEPTEMBER 29 NOVEMBER 3-5

IBIA Bunker Training Course IBIA and S&P Global Platts: Middle East Bunker Fuel Conference 2020 IBIA 1 Day Bunkering Course (SS648:2019)

Dubai, Middle East Dubai, Middle East Singapore, Asia

IBIA 1 Day Bunkering Course (SS648:2019)

Singapore, Asia

IBIA 1 Day Bunkering Course (SS648:2019)

Singapore, Asia

IBIA 1 Day Bunkering Course (SS648:2019)

Singapore, Asia

IBIA and UK Chamber of Shipping: Bunker Fuels Conference

London, UK

IBIA Annual Convention 2020

Houston, USA

2020 EVENTS IBIA SUPPORTS OR PARTICIPATES IN FEBRUARY 26 - 27 MARCH 17 - 20 17 23 - 27 APRIL 18 - 24 22 - 24 22 - 24 MAY 18 - 22 JUNE 1-5 29 June - 2 July SEPTEMBER 30 Sept - 2 Oct

Dubai

ShipInsight Conference 2020

London, UK

European Shipping Week Marina Energy Transition Forum 2020 Maritime Week Africa

Brussels, Belgium Antwerp, Belgium Cairo, Egypt

Singapore Maritime Week IBC 2020 - The International Bunker Conference Argus Panama Bunker Fuels Conference

Singapore, Asia Oslo, Norway Panama

Maritime Week Americas

Panama

Posidonia 2020 Maritime Week Las Palmas

Athens, Greece Las Palmas, Spain

Asia Pacific Maritime (APM) 2020

Singapore, Asia

London

Singapore

*For more information about the training courses and events, please visit IBIA’s website www.ibia.net

Houston

IBIA EVENTS

ANNUAL DINNER 24 FEBRUARY 2020

GOLD SPONSOR

SILVER SPONSOR

BRONZE SPONSORS

NETWORKING APPLICATION SPONSOR

NEW DECADE NEW HORIZONS IBIA will continue serving as the leading source of relevant information. Follow us! says Sofia Konstantopoulou, IBIA’s Global Head of Marketing & Events

I

BIA concluded its 2019 event activities with a one-day seminar in Panama City on November 20 at the W Panama hotel. IBIA was there as the official partner of the 2nd Americas Gas & Power Summit, where the delegates heard about the implications and readiness for IMO 2020 in this area. IBIA’s Director and IMO representative was there, and we had the pleasure to be supported

by Captain Demostenes Sanchez, Deputy Director of Panama Merchant Maritime, who delivered a key note speech.

Whether you attended one or several of our events, the moments, the knowledge and the experiences we shared made the industry more united and for sure a bit better.

To recap our activities during 2019, IBIA held a number of successful events around the globe. To talk numbers, we organised 10 IBIA events, we acted as a ‘Supporting Organisation’ for over 40 conferences and seminars, we engaged and worked with 120 speakers, we reached out over 2,000 attendees, we were sponsored and supported by 50 companies, we run 25 bunker training courses and we have been present in over 20 countries.

IBIA will continue creating and extending its global networking and business opportunities for you, as well as educate you and inform you about industry developments.

Our loyalty towards our members bring us, for a 26th consecutive year, together for the IBIA Annual Dinner 2020 on February 24, and we are once again gathering at the luxurious Grosvenor House in Park Lane in London. This is the only way to start London’s IP week, where we can guarantee that you will enrich your networking and business opportunities by being amongst the most influential stakeholders in the industry. We would like to extend our thanks to the sponsors of the prestigious IBIA Annual Dinner 2020 for their valuable support: our Gold sponsor Sea Crown Marine Services, our Networking Web Application sponsor S&P Global Platts, our Silver Sponsor Gulf Petrol Supplies and our Bronze Sponsors BP and Total.

We understand your concerns, your worries about the unknown, and your will to comply in the most effective way.

We ask you to take advantage of our platform to gain more direct access to the people and the information you need in order to succeed in your mission.

Moving forward, IBIA in partnership with S&P Global Platts will organise a 2-day conference on March 11-12 in Dubai, preceded by an IBIA Training course on March 10. This will take place onboard the legendary ocean liner Queen Elizabeth II (QE2),

12

The announcement of the IBIA events in 2020 comes at a very interesting time for the industry. After the historic IMO 2020 changes, IBIA’s mission is to continue building understanding, representing the industry and working toward meeting your needs.

Apart from our representation at the IMO, how will we do that in practice?

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

After the successful IBIA and UK Chamber of Shipping seminar we delivered last year, we have decided to join forces again to host the ‘Bunker Fuels Conference’ in London on 29 September.

It will be a continuation of our previous collaborative effort, covering the impact of IMO regulatory changes.

Shipowners and suppliers will share the challenges they have faced and how they overcome them.

The seminar will also offer market analysis, and we will follow up on legal aspects and enforcement.

Stay tuned, because you never know, the next one might take place somewhere near you.

In this very first issue of the year, we would like to announce that the IBIA Convention 2020 will take place in Houston on 3rd - 5th November.

Sofia Konstantopoulou at sofia.konstantopoulou@ibia.net.

See you all soon.

If you want to become a speaker, sponsor or find out more about our events, you can contact:

Follow our social media: So, don’t miss the opportunity to be part of the most exclusive and exciting Convention of the decade! By now, you should all know how to find me if you want to participate as a delegate, sponsor or speaker.

As always, we will keep you posted about the Convention and of the rest of the IBIA events we run around the world.

internationalBunker IndustryAssociation/ ibiabunkers https://linkedin.com/ company/ibia.net @IntBunkIndAssoc Website: Ibia.net

Sofia Konstantopoulou

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

13

IBIA EVENTS

an iconic cruise ship which is now permanently moored at Dubai’s Mina Rashid. Both IBIA & S&P Global Platts are truly pleased with this strategic partnership and very proud to announce the new Middle East Bunker Fuel Conference 2020, a must attend event for industry participants in the region.

Coming at a time of significant change in the industry, this event builds upon our successful global bunker event series portfolio. Bunker suppliers, refiners, ship operators, bunker traders, leading analysts, solution providers and local infrastructure players will join us for two days of insights and networking in a sophisticated setting.

The conference will conclude with an exclusive port visit to Fujairah.

You can register through the S&P Global Platts website.

IBIA EVENTS

Delegates at IBIA’s Panama seminar

Alexis Rodriguez from the Panama Canal Authority presenting at IBIA’s Panama seminar

Panama-based IBIA board member Nicolas Vukelja Duque supported IBIA at our event which was project-managed by IBIA’s Tahra Sergeant

Captain Demostenes Sanchez, Deputy Director of Panama Merchant Maritime

IBIA’s Panama event was well supported by local officials and personalities

IBIA’s Tahra Sergeant and Unni Einemo at the conference venue

Panel debate at IBIA’s Panama seminar

14

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

IBIA ASIA The team: Alex Tang - IBIA Asia, Martin Chew - Innospec Inc., Gowri Shankar - Tribocare., Maureen Poh - Ince & Co., Alan Bannister- Argus Media, Captain Ashley Noronha - Teekay Tankers

TRANSITIONING INTO A NEW CHAPTER IBIA Asia Regional Manager Alex Tang reflects on his first half year with IBIA and looks ahead to 2020 activities

A

transition is a good time to reflect on my first six months with IBIA and planning of the upcoming 2020 activities which include attending the IBIA Annual Dinner in London in February 2020, participation as speaker/organiser for the Asia Pacific Maritime exhibition in March 2020, and the IBIA Asia Annual dinner in April 2020.

Overall, it has been an enriching journey for the past months and weeks for this relatively new employee on board with IBIA, getting to know new team mates and working culture to help ensure the success of IBIA Asia.

As I am writing this report, it is Chinese New Year Eve and the zodiac sign of the coming year is Rat,

which is the first animal in the Chinese Legend to win the race eventually with its wit rather than strength. It also symbolises the beginning of a new 12-year term in the Chinese Lunar Calendar.

Being myself born in the year of the Rat, I hope to be as agile, resourceful and energetic to work with my peers, industry partners and colleagues during this race and the journey of the new chapter of 2020.

On November 21 last year, IBIA Asia partnered with Ince & Co Singapore on hosting an interactive evening panel on “IMO 2020 Readiness” for over 40 delegates ranging from traders, oil suppliers, brokers, fuel testing agencies, fuel additive suppliers, ship owners, mariners and technical specialists from 20 companies.

The panel was moderated by Maureen Poh from Ince & Co while the panel experts team consisted of Captain Ashley Noronha- Teekay Tankers, Alan BannisterArgus Media, Martin Chew - Innospec Inc. and Gowri Shankar- Tribocare. The session provided a fresh insight inti issues on 2020 compliant fuels and experience sharing, with active participation from delegates asking questions.

iStock

©

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

The evening continued with networking and in-depth discussion over drinks and light meals.

17

IBIA ASIA Maureen Poh moderated the session

Training The IBIA Asia office offers specialised training for the bunker sector in Singapore with Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) approved and certified courses. We offer both Basic Bunkering and Enhanced Bunkering Courses covering the Singapore Standard SS600:2014 and Mass Flow Meter Technical Reference TR48:2015. In November and December 2019, we attracted 26 trainees to attend the courses.

Interested parties are encouraged to contact Noraini noraini@ibia.net and Alex Tang regionalmanagerasia@ibia. net for more details on sponsorship opportunities and booking tables.

Alex Tang, CMarSci MIMarEST Regional Manager: Asia M +65 88766491 E regionalmanagerasia@ibia.net W www.ibia.net

Alex Tang

Due to the new Singapore Standard SS648:2019, IBIA Asia has developed a new syllabus for a 1 Day Training for approved Bunker Surveyors and Cargo Officers. This has been approved by MPA and at the time of writing was undergoing a Maritime Cluster Fund grants approval review for the local trainees.

We target to roll out this new course in mid-February 2020. Interested Corporate members are encouraged to contact Noraini noraini@ibia.net and Alex Tang regionalmanagerasia@ibia. net for Corporate member and early bird discount information.

IBIA Asia Dinner 2020 The IBIA Asia Annual Dinner has been part of the Singapore Maritime Week’s social event for the past several years.

It is a highly successful event which attracts about 200 participants, not only from Singapore but also from regional countries involved in the maritime bunkering industry.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

Drinks, meals and networking

19

IBIA AFRICA

NEW DECADE, NEW ERA Challenges and changes are where we grow from, says IBIA Africa’s Regional Manager, Tahra Sergeant

A

s we enter a new decade, the bunker industry in Africa (and globally) has been faced with new fuels and new challenges. As we know, challenges require solutions, which open opportunities for old hands to up their game and for newcomers to get involved with fresh ideas. Both can help our industry advance further, and we will need that, as the implementation of the IMO 2020 sulphur limit has demonstrated.

The Africa region has faced both challenges and successes upon entering 2020. Some would say the challenges have outweighed the success initially,

with reports of actual availability of fuels complying with the 0.50% sulphur limit falling short of demand and the volumes some suppliers in the region had committed to providing. There has been a knock-on effect on business, which has been slowing to some extent.

Industry has indicated that there will be a more positive upturn with regards to supply in Q2 of 2020.

IBIA Africa will address several changes and advances during 2020.

Firstly, given the successes of our past four IBIA Africa Conferences,

we will again host a conference bringing the regional membership the insights of not only local, but international experts. We will keep you posted about the IBIA Africa Annual Conference 2020 on the IBIA website as well as by direct mail to members.

Changes are afoot in the way we engage with our members.

With the launch of the new and improved IBIA website and membership engagement platform, local and international members will have a more integrated and simpler way of tracking vital IBIA and industry information,

IBIA AFRICA EXCO

Grant Bairstow Head of Aviation and Marine Technical VIVO Energy

Chrystel Bassett-Simmonds Chairperson and co-founder SAMF, Managing Director Lavin Energy Ltd.

Niall Kramer Executive Director, SAOGA

20

Patrick Holloway Partner Webber Wentzel Attorneys

Paul Maclons Chief Executive Officer AMSOL

Trevor Jones Professor University of Kwa Zulu Natal: Maritime Studies

Tahra Sergeant Regional Manager: Africa IBIA

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

PAGEAFRICA IBIA TITLE iStock

©

ensuring that you and your team are kept abreast of the latest updates. This is a two-way street and your input and feedback is always welcomed, as we strive to deliver a better and simpler way of communicating.

With the growth of IBIA globally and the developments of new regions, we will be announcing a change in IBIA’s structure involving five regional boards in addition to the main global board we have today.

IBIA Africa will host a local Annual General Meeting mid-year and be calling for nominations for members to stand for the Regional IBIA Board. This board will consist of representatives within the IBIA Africa membership and give IBIA Africa a secured seat on the IBIA Global Board. This Regional Board will drive the narrative and steer the local aims and goals of our Association, a very exciting time for IBIA Africa.

Patrick Holloway, Partner at Webber Wentzel, IBIA Board Member and an active member of the IBIA Africa Executive Committee (ExCo) for over 12 years, comments with regards to the changes we face as a team: “IBIA has been fortunate to have a dedicated ExCo for the Africa region, supported by the IBIA Secretariat, who have together contributed their time to growing IBIA membership in Sub-Saharan Africa, including by way of offering world class annual conferences and training in the region. The challenge for the incoming regional board will be to increase membership and maintain the region’s ongoing financial contribution to the running of IBIA.” World Bunkering SPRING 2020

IBIA Africa would like to thank its Regional Executive Committee for their support and promotion of IBIA within the African bunkering industry. We look forward to welcoming many of them on the new IBIA Regional Board, as well as welcoming new members.

If you would like to engage with the IBIA Africa team, or become a member of IBIA,

speaker, sponsor or find out more about our local engagements and events, please contact me.

Tahra Sergeant Regional Manager: Africa SA Mobile +27 (0)79 990 7544 E tahra.sergeant@ibia.net S sergeant.tahra W ibia.net

Tahra Sergeant

21

COMPANY NEWS - VIVO ENERGY MAURITIUS

SUSTAINABLE GROWTH Vivo Energy Mauritius was established in 2011 as the company that markets and distributes Shell branded fuels and lubricants to retail and commercial customers in Mauritius. Prior to 2011, our company was known as Shell Mauritius

S

ince our inception, we pride ourselves in being part of the wider Vivo Energy family that spans the continent of Africa in 23 countries. Globally, Vivo Energy supplies bunkers and/or lubricants to Marine customers in 14 countries.

These include Kenya (lubes only), Mozambique, Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion, Namibia, Ghana, Gabon, Guinea, Senegal, Cabo Verde, Cote d’Ivoire (lubes only), Morocco and Tunisia (lubes only).

Of all the entities, our highest bunkering activity takes place in Mauritius.

Vivo Energy Mauritius has been a supplier to the marine sector for over 70 years.

We deliver fuel at quayside or by barge at anchorage. In 1971, when the company was known as Shell Mauritius, we became the first company to own and operate our own barge, appropriately named L’Ami Constant. Since then, we have built on our expertise as the sole barge operator in Mauritius for 40 years to introduce new barges to cater for the expanding and evolving needs of our customers.

Our commitment to meeting the needs of our marine customers comes as no surprise. Mauritius is strategically located on one of the busiest maritime routes in the world, on the east-west route linking Asia with Africa. Every year, some 35,000 vessels navigate close to Mauritius, which represents an opportunity for bunker only to Port Louis.

There has been an increase in the importation of bunker fuels from around 286,000 tons in 2014 to more than 600,000 tons in 2019, representing a growth of more than 100 per cent. In order to promote and sustain the Mauritian economy, Vivo Energy Mauritius is playing its part in planning new initiatives to expand its bunkering activities in Port Louis.

Bunkering activities take place around the clock and every day of the week.

What makes Port Louis particularly attractive, apart from its fine harbour, skilled workforce, logistics capacity and business-friendly environment, is the fact that all bunkering is free of excise duty and value-added tax.

Vivo Energy Mauritius upholds and applies all international norms and standards that regulate the industry. Our company is in full compliance with this standard. Likewise, our marine fuel oil and marine gasoil conform to ISO 8217/2012 (RMG380/RME180/DMA).

The government of Mauritius is keen to make the island a petroleum and bunkering hub, not only by removing taxes but by increasing the storage capacity of petroleum products.

In line with IMO 2020 regulations, Vivo Energy Mauritius has transitioned smoothly to the 0.5 % Sulphur limit on marine fuel oil.

In order to eliminate risks of contamination, we conducted a full cleaning of our shore storage tanks, certified for cleanliness by an independent surveyor prior to receiving our first Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (LSFO) cargo.

Vivo Energy Mauritius continues to strive to become more effective and competitive in our operations, paramount to the efficient bunkering of vessels of all kinds. When it comes to health, safety and security, we invest substantially in implementing world-class safety practices.

22

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

PAGE TITLENEWS - VIVO ENERGY MAURITIUS COMPANY

O

ur delivery barge has also undergone the same stringent cleaning and control process to ensure that fuels delivered to bunkering vessels conform to the new Sulphur limit. As the exclusive supplier of Shell Marine Lubricants in Mauritius, we have introduced lubricant grades compatible with the new LFSO since the fourth quarter of 2019.

The importance of choosing a quality-focused supplier cannot be overemphasized. Both the IMO Best Practices for oil suppliers and the JIG recommend that the supplier should operate quality management systems. At Vivo Energy Mauritius we provide peace of mind to our customers by guaranteeing quality through our ISO9001 certification of all our depots and bunkering activities.

Our success in contributing to turning Mauritius into a bunkering hub in the Indian Ocean has come about by an unshakeable belief in the sustainable growth of the bunkering sector in Mauritius, by confidence in our ability to deliver, through forming strategic partnerships, and by taking full advantage of strong political will. Investment in the continuous training of our staff has also been a key success factor.

Customers are invited to contact our dedicated bunker desk for all their Port Louis enquiries. Our Marine team would be pleased to respond to all your questions and requirements.

Vivo Energy Mauritius Contact Desk: Vy-Anne Young, Bunker Sales Manager, vy-anne. young@vivoenergy.com Tel: +230 206 1227

Michelle Ah Cham, Marine Customer Sales Support, michelle.ahcham@vivoenergy.com Tel: +230 206 1296 Jennifer Fauvrelle, Marine Sales Support, jennifer. fauvrelle@vivoenergy.com Tel: +230 206 1124

From left to right: Vy-Anne Young, Bunker Sales Manager. Ashvin Ramdenee, Supply & Distribution Manager.

Jennifer Fauvrelle, Marine and Aviation Sales Support. Michelle Ah Cham, Marine Customer Sales Support.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

23

JOIN US Membership Benefits Join IBIA to become part of a global network of bunker industry experts who collectively form one of the world’s leading authority on bunkers. You have access to a wealth of information and insight (we publish newsletters and industry updates on current issues) which offer pragmatic advice for managing the industry’s challenges. Members also have the potential to shape and influence both international and local legislation through participation in IBIA’s Working Groups that help to develop industry guidance, formulate IBIA’s input to the IMO, and work on solving industry issues, addressing both commercial and technical aspects.

Individual - £250

Corporate - £1300

• • • •

ALL THE BENEFITS OF INDIVIDUAL+ • Register up to two offices anywhere in the world • The right to vote for Board Member Elections (2 votes) • 5 user registrations on the IBIA portal • 2 subscriptions per office to World Bunkering magazine, sent to all registered offices • Eligible to book up to 4 tables at the prestigious IBIA Annual Dinner • Eligible to add further offices for a reduced fee of £500* per office

• • • • • • • •

IBIA Board Member eligibility The right to vote for Board Member Elections (1 vote) IBIA Working Group eligibility Free or discounted IBIA training courses/ conferences/seminars/events/conventions Individual discounts on other industry events Subscription to World Bunkering magazine Representation at IMO (International Maritime Organisation) Use of IBIA logo on your website and stationery Access to IBIA’s online membership directory Eligible to book up to 4 tickets at the prestigious IBIA Annual Dinner IBIA mediation and dispute resolution IBIA membership certificate

* The £1250 corporate membership is for the first two offices only. Corporate additional is £500 per office.

Corporate additional members get all the benefits of the Corporate membership with the exception of the right to vote for Board Member elections.

You can add as many additional offices as you pay for. Affiliation with the primary Corporate member must be authorised. £500 per additional office. Special cases can be negotiated individually with the IBIA membership management team.

Multiple year discounts • 15% discount for 3 years membership, (Paid in one instalment) – Guarantee no membership price increases for the next 3 years.

• IBIA Members On-line Directory • The IBIA directory is only available to IBIA members.

• If you are interested in learning how you can become more actively involved and become a member email tara.morjaria@ibia.net or visit ibia.net.

• Unregistered offices will not get IBIA benefits

IBIA CODE OF ETHICS IBIA is appealing to all of its members to join this important initiative by showing support for our Code of Ethics. It’s an aspirational statement and an important step towards our aim of promoting the adoption of a common set of ethical values across the industry. We believe that when the entire industry acts with the highest ethical standards that this will be to the benefit of us all.

FAIR BUSINESS • We conduct our business in a fair and transparent manner • We will always act in the best interest of each business partner and are honest with the stakeholders involved in our business • We only engage in business using compliant products, and deliver the quality and quantity agreed with our business partners • We always act in good faith

BEST PRACTICE • • • • •

We always act in accordance with applicable legislation, including sanctions We always meet contractual obligations in a timely manner We always do our best to avoid disputes and seek resolution promptly if disputes occur We comply with all applicable competition and anti-corruption laws We respect confidential information and do not unlawfully use any intellectual property

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY • • • •

We seek to minimise our environmental impact and the risk of environmental damage We will always ensure employees’ health, safety and security We offer equal opportunities, prohibit unlawful discrimination and respect human rights We offer the same opportunities for professional development to all our employees

TRANSPARENCY • • • •

Our accounts and records are kept accurately and reflect the true state of the company and its operations During audits or investigations, we fully cooperate with the authorities We will not receive or give any gift or entertainment of disproportionate value We are fully committed to preventing both money laundering and terrorist financing

You can sign up to our Code of Ethics online: https://codeofethics.ibia.net/

INTERVIEW

Shipping’s top names pay attention to global warming: Sir Michael Bibby, Managing Director of Bibby Line Group and President of the UK Chamber of Shipping, Guy Platten, Secretary General of the International Chamber of Shipping, Kitack Lim, Secretary General of the International Maritime Organization and Lasse Kristoffersen, Chief Executive Officer of Torvald Klaveness and ICS Vice Chair

GETTING SERIOUS World Bunkering’s editor, David Hughes, asked the deputy secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), Simon Bennett, if the shipping industry is really prepared to meet the challenges of going carbon free

D

H: Last September’s ICS conference focused on the dangers of global warming and the need to decarbonise. There were very strong messages on the danger posed by greenhouse gases (GHG) and on the need to act. Do all the ICS member associations share this determination to be proactive on moving the industry towards zero carbon?

SB: Yes there is a full consensus, not only among ICS national shipowner associations but all of the other international shipowner associations too. This is demonstrated by the joint submission the industry has now made to IMO containing a detailed proposal for a 5-billion-dollar R&D Fund - financed by a mandatory contribution from shipowners of 2 US dollars per tonne of fuel purchased for consumption, to accelerate the development of zerocarbon technologies.

This will be vital if the IMO target of a 50% total CO2 cut by 2050 is to be achieved.

In short, the industry recognises that it if does not accept responsibility for finding a pathway to decarbonisation, others will do this in a way that the industry will not like.

DH: ICS has consistently argued that if IMO decides to mandate Market Based Measures (MBM) to move the industry away from fossil fuels it would prefer a levy to a carbon trading system. Why is that?

28

SB: To be clear the industry proposal for an R&D Fund is not a market-based measure, though the proposal we have made could provide some of the architecture for an IMO MBM should IMO Member States decide to do this in the future.

A fixed levy per tonne of fuel as opposed to an emissions trading system (ETS) in which the cost of purchasing carbon credits goes and up and down is far less likely to result in market distortion. A levy would also be better suited for an industry comprising thousands of small and medium sized enterprises DH: Nevertheless, there is strong pressure in the EU towards including shipping in its carbon trading system. What do you think the consequences of the EU doing that would be? How likely is it that there will be a European regional regime?

SB: Our biggest concern is that a regional measure like this would greatly undermine the good progress that is being made at IMO including the adoption of the ground breaking IMO GHG Strategy of 2018, which it should be remembered EU Member States have signed up to.

There is no place for unilateral action in the IMO Strategy as we are a global industry requiring global solutions.

Simon Bennett

Otherwise we have chaos. Imposition of an ETS on non-EU flag ships calling at EU ports would almost certainly impact on the willingness of non-EU governments to continue making progress toward a global solution. We don’t believe the EU wants that given the leadership they have shown at IMO. This is the argument that we will have to make to the EU institutions, and If they are serious about wanting to eradicate CO2 emissions from the entire global shipping industry, we are confident that they will listen.

DH: Environmental campaign groups are pushing the view that slow steaming would be an effective short-term measure to reduce CHG emissions. Why does the shipping industry oppose this?

SB: We recognise that managing speed is an important short-term CO2 reduction measure but our focus is on speed optimisation rather than mandatory speed limits which are blunt instruments that will actually stifle innovation and inhibit further efficiency improvements.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

INTERVIEW

T

hese arguments are also fully accepted by the vast majority of IMO Member States.

DH: The environmental groups tend to portray IMO as having done almost nothing to decarbonise. Do you think there is a real risk IMO could lose control over this process?

SB: Their own data, for example that produced by International Council on Clean Transportation, suggests total emissions from the sector today are lower than they were 10 years ago, despite a significant increase in maritime trade over the same period.

Most of the green NGOs are campaign organisations who do a sound job drawing attention to the need for action. But the solutions are very technically and politically complicated. Both IMO and the industry actually need to be given far more credit for developing solutions that will work and deliver results.

We see this mainly as matter of political will and the fact, despite the critics, that all IMO member states have agreed to adopt very ambitious reduction targets and are fully committed to their successful delivery is real grounds for optimism.

DH: Could you explain the thinking behind the industry’s proposal for a US$2 a tonne levy on bunkers to fund research.

How confident are you that IMO member states will respond positively?

SB: US$2 a tonne will generate about US$5 billion dollars over a 10-year period – based on total fuel consumption by the world fleet of about 250 million tonnes per year , which the industry has determined should be sufficient to accelerate the intensive R&D effort required to fully decarbonise international shipping within the ambitious timeline agreed by IMO.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

Adair Turner, Chairman, Energy Transitions Commission deliver one of several hard-hitting talks at the ICS conference

A global fund of this kind, with mandatory payments being made by shipping companies worldwide regardless of the flag state, has never been attempted before and will require the political support of IMO Member States. About 60% of maritime trade now serves developing IMO Member States, many of whom have legitimate concerns about the impact of increased maritime transport costs on their economic development.

The industry has therefore proposed a figure that it hopes will be acceptable to developing nations, being within the current daily price variability of marine fuel oil.

DH: Do you think the shipping industry really understands the scale of the challenges it faces with regards to eliminating GHG? SB: Yes - I think the penny has finally dropped, as demonstrated by the consensus behind the industry’s Research & Development Fund proposal.

Shipowners have few illusions about the scale of the challenge. Actually, it is the case that it is many governments, and not the shipowners, who do not fully understand the practical problems that shipping faces.

If the IMO target for 2050 is to be achieved, accelerated R&D throughout the next decade is going to be vital.

The IMO target for 2050 is actually very ambitious because it has to be achieved regardless of growth in maritime trade, which is expected to increase due to population growth and expectations for increasing prosperity in emerging economies.

Even using conservative estimates for trade growth, a 50% total cut in CO2 by 2050 can probably only be achieved by improving carbon efficiency of the world fleet by around 90%. This will only be possible if a large proportion of the fleet is using commercially viable zero-carbon fuels.

This means that commercially viable zero-carbon ships, including large ships capable of transoceanic voyages, have to start appearing on the market by the early 2030s.

In practice, if the 50% target is achieved, with a large proportion of the fleet using zero-carbon fuels by 2050, the rest of the world fleet would also be using these fuels very shortly thereafter, making 100% decarbonisation possible. And that is the industry’s goal.

29

INDUSTRY NEWS Bunkering a container ship in Rotterdam. Suppliers there will soon be licensed while the container lines are coming under pressure to scrap bunker surcharges

RUSSIA STAYS WITH HSFO FOR INLAND SHIPPING Country’s domestic fleet gets a three-year reprieve from the implementation of 0.50% sulphur limit, reports Olga Bogacheva

M

arine fuel with a sulphur content of more than 0.50% can be used within the territory of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) until the end of 2023, following a late December decision by the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EAC). It extended a current regulation allowing a sulphur content of up to 1.5% until 31 December 2023.

A spokesperson clarified that the decision refers only to fuel used by ships for inland water transport within the territory of the EAEU. This move followed appeals by shipping industry bodies to the Russian Government.

Experts pointed to a number of potential negative consequences from an immediate tightening of the marine fuel sulphur limit. It could, they claimed, cause price increases of up to 40%, bankruptcy of domestic shipping companies, job losses and disruption of the 2020 navigation season in domestic areas.

The industry was supported by the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation. The EAC Council said its decision would allow Russia to comply with MARPOL standards in international transport but avoid severe social and economic consequences in inland water transport.

30

Singapore’s sales drop again Bunker sales at Singapore dropped 4.7% year-on-year in 2019, to 47.46 million. This was a steeper decline than in 2018 when there was a 1.65% year-on-year decrease.

Sales peaked in 2017 at a record 50.64 million tonnes.

Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) figures do not give details of sales by supplier, but does publish a list of firms by ranking. In 2019, PetroChina International topped the list followed by Sentek Marine & Trading Pte, Ocean Bunkering Services, Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte and Shell Eastern Trading.

There are now 44 licensed suppliers in Singapore, down from 55 a year ago.

Rotterdam to license bunker suppliers The Port of Rotterdam has confirmed it plans to introduce a licensing system for bunker suppliers next year.

A spokesperson told World Bunkering that the major bunkering hub was making the move because it wanted to ensure “quality, quantity and transparency”.

Rotterdam Port Authority said that, together with other northern European ports including Antwerp, it was intending to introduce a licensing system along similar lines to that operated by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore.

There is already a licensing scheme in place for LNG bunkering at Rotterdam.

Trafigura, Frontline, Golden Ocean JV named Global commodity trader Trafigura has announced that the Singapore-based bunkering trading joint venture it has set up with ship operators Frontline and Golden Ocean is to operate as TFG Marine.

In its 2019 annual report Trafigura said: “During 2019, Trafigura and leading ship owners Frontline Ltd. and Golden Ocean Group Ltd. announced an agreement to establish a leading global supplier of marine fuels.

Trafigura will contribute its existing physical bunkering operations to the joint venture and owns 75 percent interest. The joint venture, TFG Marine, will act as the exclusive purchaser of marine fuels for Trafigura, Frontline and Golden Ocean.”

GSF advises shippers on 2020 surcharges The Global Shippers Forum (GSF) has issued advice for importers and exporters facing demands for surcharges from shipping lines seeking to cover their costs of compliance with the IMO 2020 0.50% sulphur limit.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

James Hookham, GSF’s Secretary General, commented: “With the container shipping industry in a trough of depression, the additional burden of complying with tough new rules on emissions from vessels is a necessary but unwelcome start to 2020. The shipping industry has widely assumed that the costs of cleaning up its environmental act can simply be passed onto its customers (shippers) in the form of surcharges.

Whether that will be the case will be the subject of individual negotiations over the coming months.”

The shipping industry needs to wean itself off of surcharges, just as much as it does high-sulphur fuels.”

“However,” he added, “shippers should be demanding clear and consistent explanations of any surcharges demanded and GSF’s ‘Top Ten Tips for Sulphur-Surcharged Shippers’ reminds our members of the ground rules and to scrutinise carefully any surcharge demands made during contract negotiations”.

NIMR to supply in Duqm Oman’s NIMR International (NIMR) and the Port of Duqm Company have signed a long-term bunkering agreement to supply bunkers at Port of Duqm.

Repeating its long-held views of GSF on container shipping pricing he asserted: “Ultimately, the industry needs to move on to a more mature pricing regime with confidential contracting and all-inclusive charges becoming the ‘new normal’.

NIMR will operate its own 5,000 dwt barge, supplying MGO, VLSFO and marine lubricants to vessels calling the port and its dedicated anchorage areas.

It is planned to add a second, large bunker barge as sales increase.

NIMR International already supplies bunkers at Port Sultan Qaboos.

Russian inland shipping will stay with HSFO for now

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

31

INDUSTRY NEWS

G

SF encourages shippers to “challenge the basis of any surcharges to make sure they understand exactly what they are being asked to pay extra for, and whether it can be properly explained and justified by carriers”.

INNOVATION

CLEANER COMBUSTION New system uses hydrogen, oxygen and water to improve energy efficiency

G

erman shipping company SAL Heavy Lift says that, in a world first, it has introduced a new hydrogen/methanol technology into its fleet. It claims: “With significant emission reductions in terms of CO2, SOx, NOx and other particles, the injection technology developed by manufacturer Fuelsave paves the way for making shipping greener and more energy efficient.”

According to the company the FS MARINE+ hydrogen / methanol injection system is now in the onboard validation stage, following more than four years of close cooperation, testing and development between SAL and Fuelsave in a project including as stakeholders EcoTune Marine, classification society DNVGL as recognised organisation for Antigua and Barbuda, Carl Baguhn, MAN Energy solutions, MAC System Solutions, AVL and the flag state administration of Germany.

The next stage will be permanent installation on a further six SAL vessels.

SAL says that, by dynamically injecting a mix of hydrogen, oxygen, water and methanol into selected parts of the air intake of both the main engine and the auxiliary engines, the FS MARINE+ system ensures a much cleaner and thorough combustion process, resulting in reduced primary fuel consumption and reduced emissions and air pollution.

32

SAL’s chief technical officer Sebastian Westphal, says: “We have tested a prototype on a generator engine of our MV Annette over more than two years with very convincing results. The FS MARINE+ system not only achieved significant fuel savings, but also emission and air pollution reductions which was verified by third parties both during field trials and in laboratory tests.”

Fuelsave ‘s CEO Marc Sima says: “With this system we are driving the clean fuel transition with a high impact solution. It can optimize the energy consumption and the environmental impact significantly irrespective of what fuel type you operate your vessel with. Thus, it is applicable with MDO, MGO, HFO, LSFO as well as LNG. We are looking forward together with SAL to take a lead in supporting the shipping industry in its efforts to become more environmentally sustainable.

SAL says in a statement: “By investing millions of dollars into retrofitting the system to the main engines and auxiliary engines on existing vessels it may appear that SAL is taking a big financial bet, but the results in terms of savings and payback time proves quite the opposite.”

The head of the company’s fleet development team, Jakob Christiansen, says: “We ran the system for two years without a single incident and obtained results that matched the promised numbers. So, we see a technology that meets our green ambitions while also reducing the technical operating costs of the ships”.

Ammonia fuelled container ship US-based classification society ABS is to advise MAN Energy Solutions (MAN) and the Shanghai Merchant Ship Design & Research Institute (SDARI) on compliance and safety considerations in the development of a 2,700 TEU ammonia-fuelled Chittagongmax container carrier.

“Ammonia is an energy source with significant potential to help the industry meet IMO 2030 and 2050 emission targets but will require stringent new safety standards to be developed in order to support its adoption,” said ABS Vice President, Global Marine, Christina Wang.

SDARI will develop the ship design and engineering, which will utilise MAN’s dual fuel technology and ABS will assess safety-related issues and contribute to the development of rules and standards in relation to ammonia as a fuel.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

“Building upon SDARI’s experience in feeder container vessels, we are actively seeking to develop next generation designs that incorporate strategies to meet IMO 2030 and 2050 targets,” said SDARI Vice President Zho Zhiyongu.

A statement noted that ammonia, when generated by renewable energy sources, has no carbon footprint and emits almost no CO2, SOx or particulate matter when burned in engines. It did not say, however, whether the ammonia to be used would be from renewable sources.

Hydrogen hybrid PCC study Japan-based shipping group Mitsui OSK Lines and vessel electrification and digitalization specialist e5 Lab have concluded a memorandum of understanding to conduct a joint study of a hybrid pure car carrier equipped with a hydrogen fuel cell system and large capacity batteries.

MOL has been working to achieve zero emissions from vessels in port since it announced its future vision for the next-generation series “ISHIN-I” car carrier in 2009. In 2012, it launched the world’s first hybrid car carrier, the Emerald Ace, which is equipped with the world’s largestscale solar power generation system and batteries. The company says that the hydrogen hybrid PCC concept marks a further step ahead from these past projects, and the company is pursuing the possibility of introducing more extensive and more advanced technologies with the goal of zero emissions.

The companies aim to develop a hydrogen hybrid PCC, which does not emit CO2, SOx, NOx, or particulate matter while underway in coastal waters or in ports, with electricity supplied by the hydrogen fuel cell system and large-capacity batteries.

When navigating in the open sea, the hydrogen hybrid PCC’s motor would be powered by an LNG fuelled generator and the large capacity batteries.

Advertising THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE OF IBIA

FULL PAGE

HALF PAGE HORIZONTAL DOUBLE PAGE SPREAD

EDITORIAL SYNOPSIS All prices subject to VAT at standard rate COPY REQUIREMENTS Adverts required as high resolution PDF E-mail to ibia@constructivemedia.co.uk ANYTHING SUPPLIED OTHER THAN THE ABOVE MAY INCUR A PRODUCTION CHARGE PRODUCTION SERVICE Our production department can offer you a full service in the preparation of your advertisement at very competitive prices.

Telephone: +44 (0) 1495 740050

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

HALF PAGE VERT.

QUARTER PAGE

THIRD OF A PAGE

New advertisement opportunities and discounts for IBIA members! please contact Alex Corboude for details - alex@worldbunkering.net

33

INNOVATION

Conceptual design development is the initial phase of the joint development project, with the second phase moving to engagement with owners to develop designs tailored to their specific operational requirements.

WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Naples played host to the meeting that may have set the Med ECA ball rolling ©Mauro Cacciola

PULL YOUR SOx DOWN! Players in the western Mediterranean are happily rolling with the 2020 changes, but the latest Barcelona Convention meeting looks likely to throw a curveball, as John Rickards reports

I

t’s no surprise that the fuel producers and bunker suppliers of most of the western Mediterranean spent the final few months of 2019 touting the strengths of their 2020 preparations. After all, even if it was the way they felt, it would be a bold company indeed to come out and say they still didn’t have the right specs, viable supply volumes, or any clue what the market’s demands were going to be or how to meet them.

Thankfully, though, everything seems to be in hand and we went into the new year carried aloft on a wave of “ready and able” promises that, so far at least, seem to have been borne out in practice.

In September, Italian producer Saras announced that it was starting direct supply of IMO 2020-compliant bunkers at specific dedicated areas of the ports of Sarroch and Cagliari alongside all its regular grades, produced at its local Sarlux refinery.

The company’s tanker Atlantic will serve these two ports, as well as, Saras said, offering further supply options to ships passing along the Sicilian Channel and the Tyrrhenian Sea. “Through this activity the Port of Cagliari will be provided a service not available until now. Saras is proud to continue its sustainable growth path and to be able to contribute to the industrial and commercial development of Sardinia.”

In Spain, oil giant Cepsa went into the winter positively bouncing with confidence regarding the changeover,

34

citing its refining strengths and depth of its preparations.

In a statement announcing its first deliveries of IMO 2020-compliant fuel in the Canary Island in November, the company certainly wasn’t shy about the coming January: “Thanks to years of experience in this field, Cepsa has been ready for months in advance for what is one of the greatest changes and greatest challenges in the history of the shipping business,” it said. “As one of the biggest players in marine fuel supply, Cepsa’s preparation for these changes has been years in the making. Work at its Research Center and major investment in its refineries have put it ahead of the curve.”

In fairness, the company was trialling its own non-blended VLSFO fuel on nine vessels back in May 2019. Cepsa claims that blended fuels - which seem to be making up the bulk of the market in most places - are more unstable. The trial stems in question weren’t small ones - 5,500 tonnes were supplied to two ships in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, followed by 2,750 tonnes supplied to ships in Las Palmas on Gran Canaria. It certainly shows that despite generally soft uptake ahead of the year end, some operators (in this case, one of them a cruise line), have been looking to get an early feel for the new fuel type.

Carlos Giner, director of Cepsa’s bunker business, said: “We are so pleased to have been able to successfully fulfil our first orders for sustainable marine fuel in the Canary Islands.

It’s something we’ve been prepared for months in advance. Cepsa defines itself as providing fuel for every situation, every customer, and once again we have stayed true to this — the regulatory changes come into play in January, so we are ahead of the game.”

Other producers were a little more measured in their announcements.

BP said in August that it was adding Valencia to its list of compliant fuel ports - making it the company’s only one in the Mediterranean - but only offering 0.10% sulphur MGO, not 0.50% sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO). The port is served by a BPoperated 4,000 dwt bunker barge loaded with gasoil from BP’s Castellon Refinery, which is located approximately 75 km north of Valencia.

Somewhat surprisingly, BP said it expected the IMO 2020 limit to mean MGO would account for the majority of marine fuel usage, and highlighted the fact that as a known quantity, MGO would mean no change in operating procedures or ship performance.

“Fuel incompatibility is one of the main challenges our customers are faced with as the industry is shifting to cleaner fuels,” global head of BP Marine Eddie Gauci said.

“Our early market entry with MARPOL 2020 compliant marine fuel demonstrates BP Marine’s commitment to the industry and vessel owners to ensure availability with enough lead time to allow for a smooth transition to low sulphur fuel.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

Ceuta has been looking to increase bunker traffic given its proximity to the Strait, and in the first nine months of 2019 had seen 665,087 tonnes delivered to visiting vessels.

Whether the company will move to offer its VLSFO in the port as well remains to be seen. Currently its only European outlet for VLSFO is the ARA region in northwest Europe. Rival ExxonMobil is offering its low sulphur fuel through Marseille and Genoa. Augusta and Civitavecchia in Italy are supplied by Bunker Energy, with a dedicated pipeline providing the former with straight run VLSFO for shipment ex-barge.

In Gibraltar, it should be business as normal, relatively speaking. The major suppliers all set up their compliant fuel supplies well in advance and given the importance of bunkering to the port it’s no surprise the change was given some priority in government.

On the southern side of the western Mediterranean, the Port of Ceuta announced its first VLSFO availability in November, with 34,500 tonnes of compliant fuel transferred to storage

by Vilma Oil at the port’s new no. 3 berth, shortly followed by its first bunkering with VLSFO, with 90 tonnes delivered to a Turkish general cargo ship.

The territory has been looking to the future as well, with the government setting legislation handling LNG bunkering as well as laying out a well-defined code of practice covering the sector.

The first instance of LNG bunkering in the port came in August, when the semisubmersible crane vessel Sleipnir bound to the Mediterranean from its building yard in Singapore took on 3,200 tonnes of LNG supplied by TitanLNG, who brought in a tanker specifically for this delivery.

BP claims MGO will be the low sulphur fuel of choice ©BP

“We thank the Port of Gibraltar for their support,” Titan LNG CEO Niels den Nijs said. “The operation was performed in the sheltered bay helping to make this a safe, efficient and smooth operation.”

While shore-to-ship LNG bunkering will, the government has reiterated, never happen in Gibraltar as the gas tanks onshore are solely for use by the territory’s 80MW gas power plant, shipto-ship bunkering is something Gibraltar would like to see more of in the future.

THE PORT OF CEUTA BUNKERING IN THE STRAITS OF GIBRALTAR FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS!

Port Authority of Ceuta Muelle España, s/n 51001 - CEUTA (SPAIN) Telf. + 34 956 52700 Fax. + 34 956527001

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

35

PAGE TITLEMEDITERRANEAN WESTERN

We believe that an offer of the low sulphur marine gasoil variety DMA in the region will benefit our customers and the region.”

36

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

here may, of course, be somewhat trickier matters to deal with in the coming months as Brexit rumbles on. While a transition period runs to the end of the year the UK’s prime minister has insisted it won’t be extended. So Gibraltar’s government has put in place as much contingency planning as it can to keep the port running smoothly, for instance, building a ro-ro access ramp to allow direct calls rather than goods coming from Algeciras by road. But some bunker suppliers use tank storage across the Bay in Algeciras, and the end of the transition period - and free movement for fuel cargoes between Gibraltar and Spain - could be vastly more complicated than IMO 2020.

ECA proposal taking shape Another complication on the horizon, and one involving every littoral state in the region, is the possibility, looking increasingly like an inevitability now, of the Mediterranean becoming the next sulphur emission control area (ECA).

The latest meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Barcelona Convention in December 2019 in Naples set out a new road map to establishing a SOx ECA across the region, after first Spain and then Italy joined France earlier in the year in calling for its establishment.

It wasn’t all plain sailing, though. Several member states wanted to see further study into the economic impacts of instituting an ECA across the region, while NGOs led

by Italian clean air group Cittadini per l’Aria expressed their disappointment that the proposals so far “lacked ambition” in their timeline and that they didn’t include NOx emissions limitation as well as SOx. The EU put forward a considerable number of proposals that the UN’s deputy coordinator Tatjana Hema said was a “step up” as they emphasised the need for the ECA to cover the entire Mediterranean in order to maximise environmental and health benefits and to avoid competition distortion. Those proposals were supported by Israel, but others, including Egypt, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia were concerned that they were being rushed, with too little time to consider them in the four days of the COP meeting. Others, including coordinator Gaetano Leone, World Bunkering SPRING 2020

WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

T

were put off them by the need for new rounds of consultation.

After what the UN described as “lengthy negotiations” - amongst others alluded to in Leone’s closing remarks to the conference when he said the “tensions and fights of this COP” would soon be forgotten as “we are Mediterranean after all” - the convention settled on lesser changes to the original draft text, but even they could have farreaching consequences for shipping.

The proposed Mediterranean ECA under MARPOL Annex VI will cover the entire Mediterranean, and is intended to be submitted for formal approval to the 78th session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 78) in 2022.

In the meantime, the COP’s technical and economic experts will prepare the detailed groundwork for the ECA, while signatory states to the Barcelona Convention who haven’t yet ratified MARPOL Annex VI or put it into their domestic legislation are being encouraged to do so as soon as possible.

Suggestions from environmental body Nabu, which has long campaigned for the move, that the Mediterranean ECA could be in place as early as 2023 are perhaps optimistic, but it does now look like it’s coming in the next few years.

Local emission reduction initiatives Various ports in the region have been looking at ways to cut local air pollution over the past few months. Marseille is extending its cold ironing facilities to reduce ships’ use of fuel at berth with the aim of making the port entirely electric by 2025, Barcelona is reportedly considering cutting the number of cruise calls it accepts due to NOx and particulate levels, and Naples is coming under increased pressure from environmental and health groups over similarly high levels of air emissions from ferries and cruise vessels. As not all ports have been able to offer alternatives to on-board generation so far, it’s encouraging then to see the region’s first “mega battery” retrofits take place on two Grimaldi Group vessels described by Grimaldi’s Andrea D’Ambra as “an important component in our vision for sustainable shipping.”

Sardinia’s VLSFO needs have been covered by Saras ©Saras

Norwegian company Corvus Energy installed 5.5 MWh battery energy storage systems (ESS) on the ro-pax cruise ferries Cruise Barcelona and Cruise Roma during the summer, which will allow the vessels to operate solely on battery power and with zero emissions for up to four hours during port stay.

“An ESS this massive had never before been retrofitted onboard a cruise ferry vessel. It’s clear now that if shipowners are willing to go green, the technology exists,” said Corvus’ Roger Rosvold. “We are extremely proud to be chosen to supply such a groundbreaking installation.

The Grimaldi Group is a highly skilled and experienced shipowner. We are impressed with their commitment to reduce emissions from their operating fleet and their in-depth knowledge on what can be done. Good collaboration and close partnership are key in developing new and innovative solutions to accelerate the adoption of green technology. At Corvus, we will continue to drive technology further by pushing boundaries for the use of batteries.”

Corvus has a (relatively) long history of maritime battery and energy storage projects, providing battery power to more hybrid or all-electric ferries than all other providers of energy storage systems combined. With port air quality very much a hot issue and the Mediterranean’s high requirements for ferry traffic and hefty cruise presence, this kind of large-scale installation seems likely to become more common, particularly if the Grimaldi experience is a positive one.

37

PANAMA

Panama’s suppliers seem to have been well ready for 2020 ©Decal

SHALLOW WATERS

Panama’s suppliers have made the transition to 2020 solidly enough, John Rickards reports, with expansion in some operations and options for the future, but the effects of climate change are causing significant problems for the Canal

W

ith its combination of intense traffic, an ultra-competitive, opportunitydriven bunker market and links to key refining locations, if anywhere needed to make the 2020 changeover smoothly, it’s Panama. A lack of available VLSFO or highly variable specs or pricing would have led to chaos given its hub status and the Canal, but thankfully that doesn’t seem to have happened.

In the run-up to the year end, figures from the Panama Maritime Authority (AMP) showed bumper bunker sales, well up from the rather middling performance of the sector in 2018, with distillate sales growing faster than HSFO] and record numbers of vessels lifting bunkers.

One of the country’s biggest suppliers, Peninsula Petroleum, announced in November that it was on track to have delivered more than 600,000 tonnes of VLSFO across the company’s physical supply ports, including Panama, by the turn of the year in addition to putting in place the necessary flow of compliant fuel.

Peninsula’s Alex Lyra said: “We have secured the full mix of products and availability in our physical ports from reliable partners in advance of 2020 and beyond. Our enhanced supply chain offers customers comprehensive solutions across multiple locations.”

Victor Morales added: “By engaging our customers early on in the 2020 planning phase to better understand their fuel strategies,

38

demands and concerns, we’ve expanded key customer relationships across our entire blue-chip portfolio. This has enabled us to develop a comprehensive supply offering which is relevant and competitive.”

One can only imagine the trouble if that offering had been irrelevant instead.

Peninsula isn’t the only multinational outfit to have strengthened its Panamanian operations ahead of 2020.

At the end of the year, Minerva Bunkering - the artists formerly known as Aegean - bought Spanish oil giant Cepsa’s Panamanian subsidiary in whole for an undisclosed amount as new owner Mercuria continues its keen expansion programme.

“As one of the shipping industry’s great transit points, Panama is another key location where Minerva can add value to its customer base by providing reliable physical bunkering solutions,” said Tyler Baron, CEO of Minerva. “With our strategic sources of low-sulphur fuel on the US Gulf Coast and West Coast, Minerva is well positioned to enhance the Panama market’s supply base in 2020 and beyond.”

The company said its new purchase would continue to supply customers on both sides of the Canal, with local staff supported by Minerva’s teams based in New York and Houston.

Back in September, storage giant Vopak finished adding a further 80,000 cubic metres of capacity to its then 128,000 cubic metres fuel and products storage terminal in Bahia Las Minas on the country’s Atlantic coast. The terminal is still a long way short of its initial planned 360,000 cubic metres capacity, but a 40% increase in storage certainly shows Vopak’s confidence in the Panamanian market going forward.

The company was also hoping to see Panamanian authorities agree to a new offshore bunkering area something Panama has historically been very reluctant to see in its waters - particularly aimed at neopanamax vessels currently required to wait for transit in an area where bunkering isn’t permitted. Vopak Panama’s commercial manager Carls Von Lindeman told last year’s IBIA Caribbean Bunker Conference that he hoped approval for the new offshore bunkering zone would be granted by the end of the year.

However, since then the AMP has remained tight-lipped about the move and at the time of writing, no new offshore bunkering zone has been announced. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to think of it as a possibility, and while the AMP has always taken its time to consider the ramifications of changes, it has generally acceded to industry practicalities where the risks are low and economics make sense.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

PANAMA

O

ne area where the AMP and the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) have recently been relaxing past restrictions has been on gas carrier traffic through the Canal. With increasing demand for gas internationally and within the Caribbean itself, where it’s increasingly taking over from oil-fired power generation, and the ready access to US shale gas output, Panama has been touted for a while as a potential LNG bunkering location despite the ACP’s caution over gas as a cargo.

Overall, the AMP and the Panamanian government have been happy with preparations for the 2020 changes.

Speaking at the opening of an event on the new rules at the International Maritime University of Panama (UMIP) in December, AMP secretary general Elvia Bustavino said: “The Maritime Authority of Panama has committed since day one (to familiarize the different actors for an effective and timely implementation [of the rules]… since it considers that part of the challenge.”

In October, US-based AES Corporation announced the start of full operations at what it describes as the first LNG hub in Panama and Central America, at the AES Colón’s Costa Norte plant in Isla Telfers.

The facility, which includes 180,000 cubic metres of tank storage and a 381 MW combined cycle power plant, started commercial operations in late 2018 but only with gas from what the company described as “temporary sources”.

Head of the government’s General Directorate of Seafarers, Captain Juan Maltez, added that: “since the beginning of the present administration, this commitment was assumed in a transparent and responsible manner, as a matter of state. For this the MPA joined forces with the ACP, the Panama Maritime Chamber, the Panamanian Association of Navy Officers, APADEMAR, universities, fuel supply companies, shipping companies and other interested parties, in order to integrate as a single team, to ensure faithful compliance with these new sulphur limits indicated by the IMO. I have no doubt that this same synergy will accompany us across our entire management, which amongst other things is aiming to achieve the [country’s] sustainable development goals.”

AES says the commercial operation of the LNG storage facility will allow for the use of LNG throughout the region and establish Panama as the natural gas hub for the Central American region.

“The inauguration of the AES Colón storage facility is a significant milestone toward transforming the Central American energy sector, and enabling a safer and more sustainable energy future,” said AES president and CEO Andrés Gluski.

“Since AES introduced natural gas in the Dominican Republic 19 years ago, it saved consumers more than half a billion dollars a year and avoided approximately four million tons of CO2 emissions annually.”

AES has reserved 80% of AES Colón’s terminal capacity for use by industrial and commercial companies in Panama and Central America, with the remainder set aside by the company for what it describes as “a further source of growth”.

At the time of the building of the Costa Norte terminal, the potential for LNG bunkering in the future was mooted, though AES wouldn’t be drawn for comment before going to press as to whether that was still a possibility.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

Since July, Panama’s General Directorate of Merchant Marine has been training and preparing technical personnel, issuing guidelines and notices to bunker suppliers and ship operators, checking on ships’ scrubbers, and working with marine waste reception companies, who the DGMM have singled out as being “very receptive to all the information we have provided, complying with the awareness campaign and dialogue regarding the entry into force of [the new rules].”

The ACP has joined the list of authorities that do not allow the use of open loop scrubbers. A new regulation states: “Vessels are not required to changeover to light fuel on their propulsion engines if equipped with a type approved closed loop exhaust gas cleaning system (scrubbers) kept in operation, during the entire transit.”

The Canal faces other challenges at present, though, ones which have put other environmental concerns beyond SOx firmly to the fore, issues with potentially significant consequences on Canal traffic and the economics of those companies supplying ships with services like bunkering.

In July, Canal administrator Jorge Quijano signed a cooperation agreement with the UN Environment Programme’s regional head Leo Heileman to join efforts on sustainable development and combatting climate change. The agreement includes the exchange of experiences and knowledge, the development of programs and research in areas of shared interest, and human resources training across both institutions in areas such as the creation and management of environmental economic incentives, integrated watershed management, water availability, air quality, renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The main concern is that of drought, with this year seeing significantly reduced rainfall across the Canal watershed, lowering water levels and forcing the ACP to adopt measures to try to conserve water across the Canal’s length.

“The Panama Canal is an engineering marvel that has helped the world become more interconnected and has accelerated progress by enabling the exchange of goods and knowledge,” said Heileman.

“We will work closely to protect the environment and promote climate change mitigation and adaptation programs that guarantee the water supply for the interoceanic route.”

Administrator Quijano said the Panama Canal maintains a policy that complies with the best environmental practices by minimizing their impact on the waterway operations and ensuring a rational and sustainable use of natural resources with emphasis on water.

39

40

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

PANAMA Vopak confident that a new offshore bunkering zone might be in the offing ©Roel van Deursen-Spijke

H

owever, in January this year, the Canal announced that due to changing rainfall patterns and historic low water levels at Gatun Lake, the main source of water for the waterway, it was having to take measures to sustain operational water levels by placing initial limits on Canal use from mid-February onwards while it “implements a long-term solution to water”.

Finally, a handling service fee will be applied to all transits at the time they are created in the system. For vessels 91 feet in beam and over, the fee will be $5,000, while for vessels over 125 feet LOA, but less than 91 feet in beam, it will stand at $1,500. The fee will be deducted from the vessel’s tolls invoice once the vessel begins transit but will not be refunded if the vessel cancels.

Rainfall last year has been 20% lower than the historic average and the fifth driest in 70 years, and higher temperatures have also, it said, increased evaporation levels by 10%.

“Together,” the ACP said, “the new measures will allow the Panama Canal to better anticipate the number and type of ships transiting the waterway, and therefore allocate water resources accordingly. In order to plan accordingly, customers will be provided with real-time data on current and projected levels of Gatun Lake, available maximum drafts, and number and types of transits when requesting transits or making reservations.

The official lake levels will be published daily, as well as forecasted for the following two months.”

“Despite the use of extensive waterconservation measures, without fee and operational changes, the Canal’s water levels are projected to drop to levels that would affect the Neopanamax and Panamax Locks,” the ACP said. “These new measures are intended to better provide reliability in water levels and therefore transit schedules.”

A new freshwater fee will be applied to all vessels over 125 feet LOA consisting of a fixed fee of $10,000 per transit and a variable fee ranging from a minimum of 1% to a maximum of 10% of the vessel’s toll applied, depending on Gatun Lake levels at the time of transit. The fee will be lower when the lake is higher, and vice versa.

Traffic will be reduced by adjusting the number of daily reservation slots available to 27, the same as the total offered during lane outages. The waterway will also require that each vessel pays its booking fee in full within 48 hours. Nonetheless, the Canal will continue to provide additional capacity when possible, serving vessels on a first-come, first-serve basis.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

The decision to adopt the measures was taken following an evaluation of the impact of techniques already instituted to save water.

The Canal has been implementing crossfilling lockages, a technique that sends water between the two lanes at the Panamax Locks during transits and saves an amount of water equivalent to that used in six lockages each day, as well as suspending use of the Gatun Hydroelectric Plant, ending hydraulic assistance at the Panamax Locks, allowing tandem lockages with two ships transiting at the same time, and the use of water-saving basins at the Neopanamax Locks.

“In addition to these measures, the Panama Canal will expand its investment program to include projects focused on addressing the sustainability of the water supply in the medium and long-term,” the ACP concluded.

“The Panama Canal will continue to dedicate a portion of its income to analysing and identifying solutions to the problem of water availability in the watershed.”

While the measures were not yet in place at the time of writing, traffic restrictions and higher transit costs are both unlikely to serve as a boon to a bunker market that had been enjoying bumper volumes on the back of record visiting tonnage. And since climate change seems unlikely to suddenly reverse any time soon, there’s no reason to think the new limits won’t become, if not permanent, then at least a regular feature.

Low water levels in Gatun Lake are now restricting Canal traffic ©Brian Gratwicke

41

VIEWPOINT

WHAT IS ‘GOOD WEATHER’?

Huw Davies tackles a subject that causes disputes and lack of trust between charterers and shipowners.* The price increase associated with using >0.50% sulphur fuel has made the financial implications of a dispute even more severe

T

he most common commercial charter is a ‘time’ charter, under which the charterer is responsible for fuel, among other things. At average 2019 prices for HSFO, a large cargo ship consuming 35 tonnes per day would burn in excess of US$13,500 of fuel per day, so ship performance, particularly speed and consumption, are critical to charterers.

These are covered by warranties made by the owner in the charterparty.

However, ship performance is affected not only by design, age and maintenance, but by the resistance caused by wind, waves and current, which are out of the owner’s control. For this reason, performance is only warranted during ‘good weather’ which usually reflects the ‘still water’ conditions experienced during ship trials and is typically defined in the charterparty as ‘up to Beaufort Force 4 and Douglas Sea State 3…no adverse effects of swell/currents’.

To ensure that the vessel has taken the most efficient route and performed as per the warranties, modern technology allows for the progress of the vessel to be monitored. This task is often outsourced to a weather company, which will monitor the progress of the vessel and the weather along the route. On completion of the voyage, a report is produced, detailing the key events during the voyage, the weather experienced and the speed and consumption achieved.

The speed and consumption expected from the warranties are then compared to the speed and consumption actually achieved during good weather periods.

If the vessel was slow or over consumed then the owner is required to pay the difference. The performance evaluation method is based on a Good Weather Analysis, a methodology for speed and bunker analysis calculations in good weather, as set out in three English Law precedents, The Didymi, The Gas Enterprise and The Gaz Energy.

42

Wind, waves and currents are out of the owner’s control ©iStock

This system sets up a conflict situation in which: • Ship owners cast the vessel performance in the most favourable light in order to win business.

• Masters are under pressure to perform and incentivised to exaggerate the weather conditions experienced.

• Weather and routeing companies are incentivised to underestimate the weather conditions, as charterers are likely to prefer weather analysis companies that conclude in their favour.

• Charterers cannot rely on the vessel to deliver the cargo to time and cost.

This leads to a lack of trust at all stages in the chain, and a lack of focus on ship safety. The result is that inefficient and dangerous decisions are made.

Behaviours The lack of trust leads to sub-optimal decision-making and can put mariners in danger. The following 4 figures illustrate this point.

Suboptimal decision-making

Climatology shows that winds in the North Atlantic exceed Beaufort Force 4 for over 80% of the time, even during the summer months. Figure 1 shows the situation in August – in any area coloured in white or red, there is a greater than 50% probability that winds will exceed Beaufort 4. This illustrates that any planned arrival will necessarily be flawed if it is based solely on the warranted speed and consumption. In other words, warranties are a poor basis for voyage planning and ETAs.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

A similar lack of trust is evidenced in Figure 3, which shows the voyage taken by a 17,000 tonne tanker from Houston to Bilbao. Three emails outline the problem here: WEATHER ROUTEING: Updated storm warning […] New vigorous Low expected … will bring strong to severe gale force SW becoming cyclonic winds across your track and remain strong (F6) NW for your ETA at Bilbao The alternative is to slow down / heave to / turn south in order to delay your ETA until 9 Feb

Figure 2 The situations outlined shown in the table and in Figures 2 and 3 above illustrate the lack of trust in the Master. In this example, a 6,000 tonne product tanker was scheduled to sail from Amsterdam to Gibraltar. The vessel was advised by its weather routeing service to delay sailing due to severe gales in the English Channel. The Master took shelter in Falmouth Bay, but was instructed by charterers to proceed. For 72 hours, the vessel made revolutions for 12 knots, but made good a speed of only between 4 and 6 knots (see table). She could have sailed 24 hours later, avoided the severe weather and arrived at the same time, burning 30% less fuel.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

MASTER: Avoiding action for incoming Storm/ URGENT URGENT Pls note as per below WX forecast and for the safety of the vessel we are heading more to south to avoid the incoming Storm and severe adverse wx. Once the Wx subsides we will proceed towards Bilbao. As of now and keeping present forecast in view vessel’s best ETA Bilbao will be on 9th Feb CHARTERER: Plse proceed bilbao at max speed always consistent with safety and navigation. we have not requested you to heave to for 2 days to let weather pass. this is totally unreasonable.

Despite firm advice from the routeing company and the Master’s experience, the charterer instructs the Master to proceed as heaving to let the weather pass is ‘totally unreasonable’.

A record of noonday positions, however, shows that the problem does not entirely lie with charterer’s behaviour (Figure 4). During the voyage shown in the plot, the vessel reported her noon day positions as being on the southerly route. However, AIS showed her to be on the northerly Great Circle. This illustrates a lack of trust on all sides – and one that is not necessarily unjustified.

Is there a better solution?

43

VIEWPOINT

Lack of trust

VIEWPOINT

Developments Weather forecasts produced by Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) have become incredibly accurate. The best models are now better than 90% accurate at 5 days and still show skill in their 14 day forecasts.

When supplemented by statistical analysis of climatology, this accuracy enables optimised ship routeing to avoid bad weather and adverse currents in order to minimise the fuel burned over a voyage whilst ensuring on time arrival. The problem is that this process is currently conducted separately from commercial negotiations and is not reflected in the charterparty agreement.

Developing a collaborative model Numerical Weather Prediction, in combination with position reports (AIS, Sat-C, FBB etc) and reported consumption, facilitates the calculation of still water vessel performance.

This is achieved by normalising speed over ground to still water and a common loading condition.

Performance analysis using the consumption figures from noonday reports produces good results and the increasing number of ships capable of streaming data from on-board sensors will enable more accurate monitoring of vessel performance.

Currently assessments of vessel performance are mostly used to indicate when a vessel may require maintenance or to compare vessels in a pool – that is, for post voyage analysis.

However, given some basic information about the vessel and the voyage, the resistance can be calculated for the forecast weather conditions during the voyage, and estimates made of the arrival time for different combinations of speed and consumption.

This opens up the possibility of a ‘trade space’ in which owners and charterers can work collaboratively to the benefit of all.

Although the options presented are only as accurate as the weather forecasts and the vessel information, the process and the underpinning assumptions are explicit and offer a step improvement over the current process. The assumptions made are shared by all parties and the resulting decisions form an audit trail for the voyage. Gain share contracts, in which any savings over the agreed baseline are split between the two parties, would support this. *Huw Davies FNI is Principal of Meteorology at StratumFive Ltd. This article first appeared in The Nautical Institute’s magazine Seaways. It has been reproduced with their consent with some minor changes.

Winds in the North Atlantic exceed Beaufort Force 4 for over 80% of the time ©iStock

44

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

CARIBBEAN Caribbean fuel production and usage covers a broad spectrum ©David Stanley

REGULATING THE FUTURE The wide variety of economic and legislative environments found across the Caribbean are posing a challenge to authorities enforcing IMO 2020 rules. As John Rickards reports, they are also making long-term developments in the industry hard to predict

P

ast the technical practicalities faced by ship operators in terms of IMO 2020 fuel specs and behaviour, the two biggest unknowns going into the year remained production, storage and distribution across all fuel types and consistent enforcement of the regulations.

It would be wrong to suggest that the myriad states of the Caribbean represent the perfect storm in both respects.

Similar challenges are faced in some regions of Africa and South East Asia but the region can certainly be seen as a bellwether for all the complexities of such a significant regulatory change.

Local production ranges from newer, high-end refineries concentrated mostly on gasoline to smaller, older refineries built with one eye on shoreside oil power generation and in some places financially struggling. In the case of Petrotrin, the refinery has shut down due to spiralling costs. While reasonably easy access to lower-sulphur South American crude is a bonus, local very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) production capability can be spotty. Port storage is a similar picture.

In some places there has been investment in new tanks able to handle the addition of IMO 2020-compliant fuels alongside others. But there are also storage facilities that have been targeted for upgrades or replacement for years but still struggle on.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

Given the investment by the big Caribbean cruise lines in scrubbers, not to mention the remaining power generation market, HSFO seems set to remain a feature.

The regulatory picture is, if anything, even more complex.

Enforcement of the new rules across the region falls to the port state control officers of the Caribbean MOU, but at the time of writing only seven of the MOU’s 19 members have the relevant IMO 2020 regulations written into domestic legislation, even though twelve are signatories to MARPOL Annex VI.

Jamaica left it until very late last year to join the club of those with domestic legalisation in place that allows it to enforce the 0.50% sulphur limit.

Inspection rates are limited by officer numbers, which in many of the smaller island nations can be very low indeed - there is only a single PSCO in some member states, and by tight equipment budgets and limited numbers of fuel testing facilities to verify compliance.

It would be ridiculous to think that the Caribbean is going to become a haven of non-compliance and operators dodging sulphur rules, of course, but it’s certainly a region whose complexities represent a challenge.

Producers in the southern Caribbean have managed the changeover well ©dronepicr

45

CARIBBEAN

Jodi Barrow is the secretary general of the Caribbean MOU on Port State Control, and the person best placed to understand those complexities. World Bunkering spoke to her about the situation as it currently stands.

WB: Only seven CMOU members of the twelve MARPOL signatories have written the new rules into domestic law. Are you aware of any moves in the others to bring their own laws in line with the regulations?

JB: Yes, others have indicated that they are working with their governments to have the laws enacted.

WB: And are you as the regional PSC body able to do anything to encourage them to do so?

JB: We bring the matter to the attention of the Ministers of Transport whenever we can as well to the IMO to see if they can assist. Unfortunately, the legislative process within the Caribbean is very slow and with many other pressing issues, maritime legislation has a tendency to stall.

WB: In those signatory states without domestic law in place, you’re not able to carry out inspections. If your inspectors in those states have reason to think a particular vessel isn’t compliant in terms of fuel, what options if any - do they have? Can they notify destination ports within the MOU if those destinations are in states where inspection will be possible?

JB: Yes, they do this currently with all Conventions that they are not able to inspect on, for example BWM. In some cases, the CMOU is advised and we circulate this information not only to our member states, but other MOUs too, especially the Vina del Mar Agreement, in case the vessel will be stopping at one of their ports.

WB: On a wider level, is there any degree of intelligence-sharing within the MOU between signatory and non-signatory states regarding vessel operator practice? Is there anything - practical or legal -

46

stopping inspectors in a state where the IMO 2020 limits aren’t in force notifying a port of destination where it is that a given ship loaded non-compliant fuel?

JB: The PSCOs often communicate among each other and will notify other states of their concern.

WB: I know there were fears beforehand that operators of smaller vessels were either less aware or less interested in the IMO 2020 rule changes. How receptive do you think they’ve been to the new sulphur cap?

JB: I believe that this would mainly be the vessels between the 400gt and 500gt under our small vessel codes due to the engine size. I believe that the numbers of these vessels are small but we continue to work with them when they advise us of any issues.

WB: How tricky is it as a PSC body when a major regulatory shift like this comes along to juggle the requirements and constraints of so many members, different domestic legal frameworks, budgetary or manpower constraints particularly in the smaller nations? Is there anything you’d hope to see in this regard to make the job of ensuring compliance easier for you over the coming months?

JB: Is it very difficult because in many cases your hands are tied if the domestic legislation is not in place. In addition, there are resource constraints for example with having testing equipment readily available. Also, we would like to see an online resource area that our PSCOs could get real time data to check on the availability of low-sulphur fuel which can be used to assess the FONARs when presented.

If the remaining signatory states eventually add the new sulphur regulations to domestic law, the enforcement environment should at least get a little simpler, but on the other challenges faced by the region’s PSCOs, it remains to be seen how things will shake out.

One Caribbean state that was very keen to promote itself as being IMO 2020-ready before the deadline - despite the legislation backing it coming in only narrowly under the wire - is Jamaica.

Speaking at the ICBC conference in September, the country’s transport minister Robert Montague said: “Jamaica’s geographical position and its development of infrastructure to attract transshipment activities mean the country attracts more shipping traffic than warranted by our trade alone. Of course, a major challenge for the bunkering industry in Jamaica will be the provision of compliant fuel to meet the demands of the ships that operate locally and those that either trade at our ports, or will proceed to the bunkering stations in the country through simple short diversions from their transits proximate to Jamaica. I am confident, however, that [the event] is set to address compliance solutions as Jamaica advances its capabilities to becoming a bunkering nation. At the same time, I have been advised by our local refinery that compliant fuel will be available in Jamaica.”

Petrojam certainly backed up that sentiment, promising relatively early to have 0.50% sulphur fuel ready for supply from the start of the year, and that all the necessary infrastructure would be in place to ensure that the addition of the new fuel type would happen seamlessly.

Similarly, on the southern periphery of the Caribbean, Suriname’s state-run oil company Staatsolie - which also owns Trinidadian bunkering firm Ventrin - has taken to the IMO 2020 changes calmly.

The company’s regular bunker fuel has a sulphur content of only 0.7% anyway, so meeting the cap hasn’t involved some of the complications experienced elsewhere. The company began testing VLSFO mixtures that met the specs in November 2018, before launching a test programme from May until November last year on board two of the company’s contracted vessels as well as those of a second party, as well as conducting ongoing fuel quality testing with VeriFuel.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

It added: “For us, complying with IMO regulations will not only generate more international recognition, customer loyalty and market share, but also increase sales… Awareness has been given to Suriname and our company and attention has been paid to the product. More foreign companies also know that their ships can make a stop-over during transit to purchase our quality fuel.”

Given the availability of US shale gas and the creaking power generation plant of some of the island states, investment in LNG infrastructure, shoreside first, bunkering second, has been mooted across the region for some years.

The Jamaican government revealed in August that it’s planning on modernising and updating the country’s Petroleum (Downstream Activities) Act to cover Jamaica’s emerging LNG industry.

Science, Energy and Technology Minister Fayval Williams, speaking at a bondsigning ceremony involving gas company New Fortress Energy, a key player in the country’s gas power generation sector, said the changes to the law would involve receipt, storage, processing and distribution of LNG, adding that “the legislation will also deal with the licensing, construction, and operation of natural gas terminals and transportation”.

“The objectives of the new legislation will be to encourage private investments in the long-term financing and timely development of natural gas for Jamaica,” she added. “Diversified fuel choices in Jamaica promote competition in the downstream natural gas sector, prescribe the required standards for the natural gas sector, ensure the protection and safety of consumers and the public, and ensure that regulation of the sector is transparent, rational and predictable.”

While the picture continues to look promising in Jamaica, another potential gas hub of times gone by has become something of a mess.

In the run up to the 2017 general election in the Bahamas, the thengovernment was in the final stages of inking a deal with New Fortress Energy (NFE) to import LNG for power generation for state electricity firm Bahamas Power and Light via a new LNG plant at Clifton Pier, amid talks of a new era of gas usage in the Bahamas with all that that entails.

BPL’s own upper management spoke about the possibilities of LNG bunkering in New Providence.

However, the subsequent change in government meant that the deal stalled, and the new administration eventually, a year later, chose Shell as its preferred bidder for the new plant.

There’s no gas plant there yet.

However, by all accounts, Shell has been doing its best to make it happen.

BPL, struggling with power generation shortfalls, the need to consider financial implications, and then the massive damage caused by Hurricane Dorian last summer has demurred. Meanwhile the 132 MW Clifton Pier plant project was completed by Wartsila in December, consisting of seven dual-fuel marine engines running on HFO rather than LNG. Speaking in the summer, BPL’s chairman Dr Donovan Moxey said that the Bahamas could have an LNG facility by the end of 2021 as the development of one would constitute the third phase of BPL’s plan to turn its fortunes around and end the regular blackouts affecting New Providence and elsewhere. The Clifton Pier plant is to be followed by a second, 90 MW facility. He said that it would be run by Shell. Presumably the oil major would also be responsible for importing LNG. Given the delays involved in getting the first plant up and running this looks very much like a case of wait and see. With its cruise line customers already investing heavily in gas propulsion as well as scrubbers, the Bahamas would seem like an ideal environment to develop a gas bunkering industry. But while the Wartsila engines used for power generation can certainly run on gas, the development of a gas hub or bunkering in the islands will probably be on a more modest scale than originally envisaged.

Jamaica remains very keen to establish itself as a key bunker hub ©zenm

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

47

CARIBBEAN

“We advocate for a clean environment,” Staatsolie said in the late summer.

“Furthermore, the implementation of this program also stimulates us to work on improving the quality of our product.”

SCRUBBERS Cleanship scrubber

SCRUBBER-FITTED SHIPS ARE “EARLY WINNERS” Initial fuel price differentials favour ships that can still burn HSFO

A

volatile first half of this year could see big moves in price differentials between high and low sulphur fuel oils, but a trend of falling HSFO prices gives the advantage to users of abatement systems, according to research and consultancy firm Maritime Strategies International (MSI).

Experience during January seems to have borne out prediction made in December.

Prior to the implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit, MSI added new functionality to its Horizon data platform to enable users to calculate the earnings premium for scrubberfitted vessels using high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) and the subsequent impact on asset values.

Using MSI’s Forecast Marine eValuator (FMV), users can apply the spread between HSFO and 0.50% sulphur fuel oil by vessel type and see the effect this has on vessel earnings.

“That IMO2020 is already well underway can be seen from recent movements in bunker prices and using MSI’s latest forecasts at current price spread levels, we expect substantial premia on scrubber-fitted vessel earnings next year,”

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

MSI’s Managing Director Adam Kent, said in December. “So far price dynamics are adhering to our view that there won’t be a huge price spike in low-sulphur fuel, but rather the spread will be driven by falling HSFO prices.”

MSI’s most recent quarterly report assessed the impact of the spread on earnings across the shipping sectors.

For a 13,000 TEU containership consuming approximately 100 tonnes per day of fuel, a $200 per tonne price spread between 0.50% sulphur compliant fuel and high sulphur fuel would yield average cost savings over a year of approximately $17,400/day, whilst a $300 per tonne spread would yield savings close to $26,000/day.

For a capesize bulker consuming approximately 43 tonnes of fuel per day, a $200 per tonne price spread between 0.50% sulphur compliant fuel and high sulphur fuel would yield cost savings of approximately $6,500/day, while a $300 per tonne spread would yield savings close to $9,700/day.

For a VLCC consuming approximately 85 tonnes per day of fuel, a $200 per tonne price spread between 0.50% sulphur compliant fuel and high sulphur fuel would yield cost savings of approximately $15,000/day,

whilst a $300 per tonne spread would yield savings close to $23,000/day.

In December MSI predicted the 2020 spread between VLSFO and HSFO would sit in the $200-250 per tonne range for the year average.

In early February, MSI’s Director of Oil and Tanker Markets, Tim Smith, told World Bunkering that 2020 started with the spread widening rapidly to $350-400. However, prices converged through January with the spread narrowing to $250, closer to MSI’s expectations for the year as a whole.

Smith added: “The coronavirus is having a wider impact on oil markets reducing global demand and prices, further compressing the price spread in Q1 2020.”

So, in summary, owners who fitted scrubbers have done well so far and are likely to continue to enjoy significant cost savings compared to those who must buy compliant fuel. The difference may narrow throughout the year but the initial savings have been substantial.

49

SCRUBBERS

Australia allows open loop scrubbers The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has issued advise to vessel owners, operators and masters on the country’s requirements for the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS) to support compliance with the IMO’s 0.50% sulphur limit. This advice allows the use of open loop scrubbers subject to certain conditions.

If a scrubber is fitted it must be approved by the vessel’s flag state, or a recognised organisation appointed by the flag state.

It must also be operated in accordance with IMO requirements, including the IMO 2015 Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems.

Crew members must be properly trained in the use of the EGCS and the system must be kept in good working order, with maintenance up to date and monitoring devices fully operational.

The EGCS approval documents, as well as operational and maintenance records for the EGCS must be maintained on board the vessel and made available for inspection upon Port State Control Officer (PSCO) request.

Among other information that must be supplied to AMSA prior to arrival are the results of all washwater testing that has been undertaken in accordance with 2015 Guidelines. Washwater testing should be conducted upon commissioning of the EGCS and repeated every twelve months, as a minimum, for a period of two years. Ships may be directed not to discharge washwater from an EGCS in Australian waters if this data, or evidence that samples have been taken for analysis, cannot be provided to AMSA before arrival at the first Australian port.

AMSA states that, if there is an EGCS malfunction, action must be taken as soon as possible to identify and remedy the malfunction.

Any EGCS malfunction that lasts more than one hour, or repetitive malfunctions, should be reported to the flag state administration and competent authority of the port state of the vessel’s destination. The report should include an explanation of the steps that are being taken to address the failure.

If the vessel’s EGCS cannot be returned to a compliant condition within one hour, the vessel must then change over to compliant fuel oil. If the vessel does not have sufficient compliant fuel oil to reach the next port of destination, the vessel will need to make a report to the relevant authorities, including the vessel’s flag state administration and the competent authority for the next port of destination.

Any EGCS found to be not in compliance with IMO guidelines in any respect (including but not limited to the washwater discharge criteria) may be prohibited from use in Australian waters.

Clean Marine’s scrubber hybrid scrubber

50

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

SCRUBBERS

TAKING THE HYBRID OPTION Scrubber manufacturer Clean Marine is working flat out to meet demand, as the company’s marketing manager Camilla Knappskog tells David Hughes

D

H: The discharge of wash water from scrubbers has now been banned in several major ports. Did you go for hybrid open/closed loop scrubbers from the start?

CK: Clean Marine’s scrubbers have been designed and prepared for hybrid operation from the very beginning in 2005. Our EGCS includes caustic soda injection possibilities in open and closed loop – enabling operation of the EGCS in all waters with high sulphur content in the fuel. The hybrid option thus allows for a very flexible operation offering no limitations to operate in possible future restricted control areas like harbours, estuaries and narrow waterways.

DH: Can you please give some idea of your scale of production?

CK: We are capable of manufacturing between 700 and 800 scrubbers annually and can provide a full turn-key solution including installation and commissioning support to our customers. We can also offer our customers attractive financing arrangements, through affiliated companies, when they purchase Clean Marine’s scrubbers.

DH: How many sold, how many of order? Do you have a large backlog?

CK: Clean Marine has a total order backlog / reference list of 250 plus exhaust gas cleaning systems. The progress of our project portfolio currently stands at approximately 80%.

DH: What do you anticipate to be the longer term demand for scrubbers?

CK: We believe there will continue to be a healthy demand for scrubbers going forward. There are still 2030,000 ships in the market that will have a clear financial benefit from installing scrubbers. The environmental aspect of shipping will play a more central role in the long term and we believe that scrubbers or scrubber-related technology will play an important role in this shift.

The green shipping wave is still in its early stages and we expect that it will continue to grow over the next decade. There is a clear megatrend toward greener shipping, driven by expectations and demands for our industry to become more sustainable.

DH: Do you think demand will fall away once the initial rush has taken place?

CK: We experienced a high demand (first wave) for scrubbers for shipowners wanting to be compliant with scrubbers before IMO 2020 kicked in. Now that we have entered into January 2020, we see a new upsurge in interest for scrubbers as many shipowners have tried and tested the products, have compared producers and scrubbers vs.

VLSFO and see the benefits of installing a scrubber on their fleet. Moreover, we believe that the current cost-savings that scrubber fitted vessels benefit from compared to vessels running on VLSFO, will act as a catalyst for shipowners wanting to install scrubbers. We expect, and are prepared for, a second wave of scrubber demand when the technology and a persistent fuel spread is confirmed in the market. After that we anticipate the scrubber market to phase out towards newbuild.

DH: There are those who think HSFO availability will decrease quickly as modern refineries can produce little or no residual. How does your company see the situation?

CK: We do not see this as a challenge as we have not seen any recent large investments going into the refining industry that will change this picture in the next 5-10 years. It will take many years and is highly expensive for refineries to upgrade their refineries (it is estimated to cost $3bn for each refinery to upgrade), so we expect that the availability will be there almost indefinitely. Also, it’s worth mentioning that research clearly indicate that burning HFO in combination with a certified scrubber is the most environmentally beneficial means of meeting GHG emissions targets, even when taking into account LNG as an alternative fuel.

DH: Where does production take place?

CK: From 2020, following the completion of Clean Marine’s merger with FMSI, all our scrubbers will be manufactured in our state-of-the-art facility in Batam, Indonesia.

Clean Marine is scaling up production in Batam, Indonesia

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

51

SCRUBBERS

MATERIALLY IMPORTANT World Bunkering asked Anders Sørheim, of Yara Marine Technologies, about the effects of corrosion on materials used in scrubbers

W

B: How important is material quality when selecting a scrubber system?

AS: If the intention of a scrubber installation is to operate the scrubber for the lifetime of the vessel, assuming a minimum of 10 years, then the material quality is imperative. A study performed by the American stainlesssteel manufacturer ATI titled “Evaluation of Alloys for Marine Exhaust Scrubbers – Effect of Welding and a Crevice” confirmed the importance of correct material choice for scrubbers. The weight loss and corrosion rate of five corrosion resistant alloys commonly used in marine scrubbers were tested in a simulated scrubber environment.

The results revealed that for a severe corrosion case, the alloy 254SMO had a crevice corrosion rate of approx. 0.7 mm per year, while a corrosion rate close to 0 was found for Alloy59.

WB: What are the worst-case consequences of choosing poor quality equipment?

AS: Over the course of 10 years these crevice corrosion rates could in theory grow up to 7 mm deep, which in some cases is more than the thickness of the scrubber wall. Such weak spots in the scrubber tower structure can lead to cracking or other fatigue issues caused by the constant mechanical vibration and the thermal expansion-contraction cycles onboard a vessel, which would result in scrubber leakages. Hopefully such corrosion damages would be detected and repaired before any leakage occur, but such expensive repair work would drastically increase the OPEX of scrubbers produced in lower quality materials.

WB: What are the most important factors in building a corrosionresistant scrubber, in addition to alloy quality?

AS: Welding, welding and welding.

52

Even if a scrubber was built in pure nickel, it could be susceptible to corrosion damages if the welds were not properly performed by approved welders, following an approved welding procedure using approved welding materials. A good rule of thumb is that the welding material should be of a higher grade than the material being welded together, also known as “overmatching the filler material”.

In addition, the amount of heat applied during welding should be kept to a minimum to avoid hot cracking caused by the formation of carbides and intermetallic compounds in the weld. Furthermore, the welds should be properly pickled and cleaned, and finally subject to 100% NDT testing to ensure the absence of crevices caused by poor welding, including visual surface examination and ultrasonic testing. A high focus on quality is as important in the scrubber material selection as in the postmanufacturing inspections.

WB: What is Yara Marine’s preferred choice of alloy?

AS: Equipped with a broad base of maritime experience, Yara Marine was very conscious of the corrosion challenges in the extremely corrosive environment inside the scrubber when developing its pilot scrubber back in 2009. For this reason, the company chose the material Hastelloy for the first few scrubbers installed. It has excellent corrosion-resistant properties but is more sensitive to welding and is not very compatible with other materials. For this reason, Yara Marine Technologies decided to go for a similar nickel-based alloy for our scrubbers.

Based on 10 years of operational experience supported by simulations, we know where conditions are worst inside the scrubber, especially in the bottom part of the scrubber, and in these areas we design for the use of the material Alloy 59.

In other areas where the temperature is lower, we use the material AL6XN or similar, which, although not as resilient as Alloy 59, has great corrosion-resistant properties matching the corrosive environment in the upper part of the scrubber tower.

WB: How can quality be guaranteed?

AS: The simplest ways to guarantee quality is to purchase the nickel-alloys from world-renowned high-quality steel suppliers, and to have the scrubbers manufactured in high quality weld shops. In addition, Yara’s quality department does a thorough job of checking that the quality is ensured at Factory Acceptance Inspection, where 100% of the internal welds undergo rigorous NDT testing and any deviations found are reported, double checked and corrected, if deemed necessary.

WB: Are there any significant developments underway in scrubber materials or construction methods?

AS: Over the last few years we have seen a shift in our competitor’s material choice towards more corrosion-resistant alloys, although not to the extent we would have hoped. We have seen players in the market experimenting with ceramic materials for the scrubber, which is an interesting approach, as ceramics do not corrode, but they are unfortunately susceptible to other types of damages due to their brittle nature.

Various kinds of plastic composites such as GRE has been tested but are not a real option due to their low melting point. Some manufacturers have even tried different coatings inside the scrubber, but unfortunately the coating does not last long in the extreme environment. The next developments we see will be about the continued optimizing of the scrubber tower design, as long as it does not increase the risk for corrosion.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

There are also speculations that some shipowners who have high rates of asset flipping do not appreciate the lower OPEX of a more corrosion resistant scrubber, as the ships will only stay a few years in their fleet before being sold.

WB: In your opinion, are the rules and regulations for scrubber manufacturing strict enough?

AS: In general, the rules set by the class societies such as DNV GL cover the structural strength, hull integrity and the safety and availability of the main functions in order to maintain essential services on the ship.

Unfortunately, the scrubber system is not considered a main function, and therefore has less stringent rules for manufacturing.

When it comes to corrosion protection, DNV GL amended their rules for scrubber systems in 2017 to include the text: “The exhaust gas cleaning unit and exhaust piping exposed to the cleaning water or treated exhaust shall be suitable for the corrosive properties of the two medias.”

How well this rule is interpreted and enforced, however, is a different question.

As we have seen, not all corrosion resistant alloys are sufficiently resistant to corrosion in the scrubber environment.

iStock

©

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

53

SCRUBBERS

WB: What are some of the most common reasons that shipowners opt for lesser quality in scrubbers?

AS: Different shipowners have different reasons for opting for lower quality scrubbers, and we cannot know for certain the true reasons behind these decisions. Some ship owners may not realise the extent of the corrosive environment, while others may not believe that it is necessary to use such high-grade nickel-alloys. But then again, dealing with sulphuric acid in a high temperature environment is a new challenge for most shipowners.

LEGAL

iStock

©

LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES HIGHLIGHTED The 0.50% sulphur limit could be a ‘perfect storm’ for litigators, warns Beth Bradley, a senior lawyer at international maritime law specialist Hill Dickinson

A

s the shipping industry prepared for the introduction of the 0.50% limit on sulphur content in fuel to be burned on board, there were concerns around the practical and contractual challenges presented.

Stressing the importance of having detailed and careful charter party arrangements, she said: “There are a great number of issues which may radically impact on the liability situation.

It’s gearing up to the perfect storm for litigators.”

Bradley noted that shipowners bear the responsibility for complying with the global sulphur cap and their ships are the target for enforcement by authorities.

Where a vessel is not fitted with a scrubber, ensuring compliance presents a number of complicated practical issues for shipowners, ranging from availability of compliant bunkers, completeness of paperwork on board, tank and line cleaning through to a detailed understanding of fuel stability, compatibility and fuel segregation issues.

The lawyer commented: “The interesting area is what happens where you’ve ordered a compliant fuel, it looks like a compliant fuel, but when it’s tested it’s just off-spec, just slightly over the 0.50% - whose responsibility is that?”

Contractually, Bradley pointed out, shipowners tend to devolve the responsibility for supplying the vessel’s bunkers to their time charterers and this may give rise to contractual disputes, particularly where fuel supplied is found to be marginally above the 0.50% sulphur content limit set by the IMO. She noted there was little guidance available as to the attitude which will be taken by the enforcing authorities to marginal breaches of the sulphur cap. Each authority is able to set its own regulations, and potentially different enforcement practices, and the fines associated with breaches will vary.

54

Bradley continued: “We know how bunker quality disputes usually work out between owners and time charterers and time charterers and bunker suppliers – there is always a fight about whether the problem arose from the fuel supplied or how it was handled on board. The sulphur cap adds a further layer of complication. If the relevant authority concludes that the vessel has to de-bunker, who is going to pay the costs?

There will be a lot more focus on what has happened onboard. Such as, were the lines completely clean? Were the tanks completely clean? Further, the potential disparity between the MARPOL sample and commercial samples will come into sharper focus – owners will be fined on the basis of the MARPOL sample and contractual disputes are likely to focus on the commercial sample and arguments around the applicable margin of error to test results as charterers and bunker suppliers seek to show that they delivered compliant fuel”.

As result of these concerns, Hill Dickinson strongly recommended that time charterparties and related bunker supply contracts should contain carefully worded provisions to clarify bunker specifications, sampling procedures and how the potential loss of time owing to inspections and de-bunkering operations is to be shared.

Bradley concluded: “The shipping industry has come a long way in terms of preparing for the introduction of the global sulphur cap, but there is a great deal of uncertainty around the availability of compliant fuel away from the main bunker hubs and how the cap will be enforced. A lot of the associated risks can be managed contractually and through on-board procedures, but when disputes arise they are likely to be more complicated.”

Beth Bradley, Partner, Hill Dickinson

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

LEGAL iStock

©

SULPHUR: WHERE IS THE LIMIT? IBIA’s Unni Einemo explains how test interpretation should work in favour of ships in case of a MARPOL inspection

W

hen can you say that a maximum limit has been exceeded? Some say the limit is the limit, so if a fuel is tested at, say, 0.52% sulphur then surely, it doesn’t meet the 0.50% sulphur limit in MARPOL Annex VI. It isn’t that simple, because measurements are not 100% accurate. This is well known in the bunker industry where all ISO 8217 parameters are linked with specific test methods, and every test method has a well-defined accuracy known as its 95% confidence limit. For a bunker fuel with a ‘true value’ of 0.50% sulphur, there is a 95% chance that a single test result would fall within the range of 0.47% to 0.53%. On that basis, you would expect a test result up to 0.53% to be acceptable, but it’s not that simple either. It depends on where the sample came from and whether interpretation of the test result is governed by commercial contracts or MARPOL Annex VI It is an all too familiar scenario: A ship has sent one of its own samples for independent testing and has received a test result indicating that the sulphur content exceeds MARPOL Annex VI limits, while the bunker delivery note (BDN) shows a compliant sulphur content. This issue has been with us since the first emission control area (ECA) took effect, because this is not only about a potential “off-spec” under the terms of the commercial contract, but a potential statutory breach. There has, since the outset, been a conflict between the World Bunkering SPRING 2020

commercial approach to test precision typically based on ISO 4259 principles, and the approach to sulphur verification described in appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI. If a ship’s initial independent test result indicates non-compliant sulphur content, shipowners are nervous about the vessel potentially facing enforcement actions despite having a BDN showing they ordered and received compliant fuel.

The commercial reality Under most commercial contracts, bunker suppliers will not accept any off-spec claim unless the ship’s test result exceeded the 95% confidence test boundary of the relevant limit, expressed as the limit +0.59R (if it is a maximum limit). Hence, a commercial claim will not be considered unless the test result exceeds 0.53% against the 0,50% sulphur limit or 0.11% against the 0.10% limit.

If the ship’s test result is above that threshold, however, the buyer has legitimate reason to raise a claim. There is a dispute resolution procedure described in ISO 4259 which is most commonly simplified to say that the supplier’s retained sample should be tested. Unless that sample meets the limit, with no confidence margin added, the supplier cannot claim to have met the limit.

The revised sulphur verification procedure under MARPOL Annex VI works in a similar way by treating samples differently.

MARPOL Annex VI sulphur verification IBIA has campaigned at the IMO for years to improve understanding of test precision, in particular the 95% confidence boundary of the test method, and lobbied to align the regulatory approach with that. We have had partial success. At The 74th session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 74), appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI was amended so that the 95% confidence should be applied when testing in-use and on-board samples taken from ships, but it is not applicable to the MARPOL delivered sample.

MEPC 74 issued a circular, MEPC.1/Circ.882, inviting Member Governments to apply approved amendments to appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI related to the verification procedure for a MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil sample in advance of their entry into force, in order to “ensure a consistent approach to verifying the sulphur limit of the fuel oil delivered to, in-use or carried for use on board a ship until the entry into force of the approved amendments.” Entry into force will likely not be until September 2021 assuming MEPC 75 formally adopts the amendment.

These are the key points:

55

LEGAL Sulphur verification procedure for MARPOL delivered sample: The average of two test result from one laboratory must be at or below the applicable limit, e.g.0.10% or 0.50% sulphur, to be considered to have met the requirement of the regulation. This means that 95% confidence, or 0.59R (where R is the reproducibility of the test method) does not apply to MARPOL delivered samples.

Sulphur verification procedure for in-use and onboard samples: The 95% confidence principle will apply, meaning an average two test results up to the limit +0.59R will be considered to have met the regulatory requirement. This means a test value of up to 0.11% against the 0.10% sulphur limit and up to 0.53% against the 0.50% sulphur limit will be considered to have met the requirement.

What does the MARPOL sulphur verification procedure mean in practice?

The question remains: will a ship face penalty, and even be required to debunker, if a port state control authority decides to test its MARPOL sample and finds it to be above 0.50% sulphur, but at or below 0.53% sulphur?

Each state has discretion as to how they deal with this scenario but logically speaking, the above outcome should not result in any action against the ship,

because if that same sample was judged against the MARPOL Annex VI verification procedure for what the ship can use, or carry for use, a test result up to and including 0.53% sulphur for the 0.50% sulphur limit, or 0.11% for the 0.10% ECA limit, is acceptable.

During December and January, sulphur test results from testing ships’ own samples of 0.51 to 0.53% sulphur triggered frequent disputes, which is understandable as owners are nervous of potential trouble with authorities over MARPOL breaches, but it should be noted that: a) Suppliers are obliged, under MARPOL Annex VI, to record the fuel’s actual sulphur content on the BDN. This makes the BDN a legal document demonstrating whether the ship has bunkered compliant fuel. b) Non-compliance is not proven on the basis of testing the ship’s own sample, it is merely an indication of potential non-compliance. Only samples obtained and tested by the relevant authority can prove non-compliance, and it is up to the authorities whether they will do so. c) If an authority decides to test the MARPOL delivered sample, it will determine whether the fuel as delivered meets the relevant requirement. If the fuel tests above 0.50% sulphur and as such has not met the requirement as delivered, logically,

it should not cause a problem for the ship unless the test result exceeds 0.53% sulphur.

According to the MARPOL Annex VI sulphur verification procedure, a test result up to 0.53% sulphur is considered as having met the requirement for the ship to use, or carry for use.

One reason for fuel as supplied to be slightly above the 0.50% sulphur limit could be that shore storage tanks or bunker barges have not been adequately cleaned when the usage has been switched from HSFO to VLSFO. Likewise, if an authority takes an in-use sample from a ship and it is found to be above the limit (noting that up to 0.53% is acceptable for inuse samples), this could be due to inadequate cleaning of HSFO residues from the ship’s fuel tanks. Sulphur limit exceedances caused by inadequate tank cleaning should disappear over time as tanks previously used for HSFO are eventually thoroughly flushed through.

By the end of January 2020, there were in fact signs that test results above 0.50% sulphur were declining. IBIA would nevertheless like to remind the supply side that in order to be 95% certain that they need to use the limit -0.59R as the blend target to achieve a high level of confidence that their retained sample will never exceed the sulphur limit. This principle is part of IBIA’s best practice guidance for bunker suppliers, as well as subsequent best practice guidance issued by the IMO.

iStock

©

56

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

FUEL QUANTITY The use of mass flow meters is now mandatory for deliveries of all bunkers, including distillates

GOING THE WHOLE WAY Singapore has pioneered the mandatory use of Coriolis mass flow meters and is ready to roll out a new standard regarding their use

T

he use of Maritime Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) approved mass-flowmeter (MFM) systems when delivering heavy fuel oil became mandatory in Singapore in 2017. The move followed a two-year introduction phase.

The intention was to eliminate dishonest practices and quantity disputes. Goodbye to frothy ‘cappuccino’ bunkers or arguments over whether those last few tonnes really did get into the vessel’s tanks.

Or as the MPA put it at the time: “The use of the MFM system will enhance transparency in the bunkering process, improve operational efficiency and increase the productivity of the bunkering industry.”

It has followed through with its threat.

In May last year MPA issued a statement including the following: “During a recent enforcement check, MPA found that Southernpec had failed to ensure that its employees comply with the terms and conditions of their licence.

Its employees engaged in bunker malpractices, which include the use of magnets to interfere with the mass flow meter during bunkering operations.

Its cargo officers also did not record the information in the bunkering documents accurately, which breached the terms and conditions of its bunker supplier licence.” Consequently, MPA said: “Southernpec will cease to operate as a bunker supplier in the Port of Singapore.”

Broadly speaking the move has been seen as effective in enhancing the reputation of the world’s biggest bunker port. The mandatory use of MFM systems was expanded to all deliveries of distillates with effect from 1 July, 2019.

Another company, Inter-Pacific Petroleum, received the same treatment towards the end of the year. The message to anybody thinking of subverting the system has been very clear. It is not worth it.

There have been attempts to trick the MFM readings, and the MPA has cracked down hard when these have been discovered. It said last year that it took “a serious view of any attempt to jeopardise the integrity of the MFM and will not hesitate to take immediate and firm action against those who do so”.

The original move to MFM use was underpinned by Singapore’ Standards Council Technical Reference TR 48:2015.

Now that standard is being replaced

by Enterprises Singapore SS 648:2019 - Code of Practice of Mass Flow Meter Bunkering, which was launched in November 2019.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

Unlike TR 48, the new standard applies to distillates as well heavy fuel oil.

The MPA said this was because it expected distillates volumes to increase considerably when the IMO 0.50% sulphur limit came into force.

SS 648 has been developed by the Working Group (WG) on Mass Flow Metering which consists of expert members from the oil majors, bunker suppliers, shipowners, Singapore Shipping Association (SSA), IBIA, testing laboratories, bunker surveying companies, meter vendors and supporting vendors, National Metrology Centre (NMC), Enterprise Singapore’s Weights and Measures Office, and Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA).

The WG was appointed by the national Technical Committee (TC) on Bunkering under the Singapore Standardisation Programme administered by Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and is supported by the Standards Development Organisation at Singapore Chemical Industry Council.

The WG prepared a draft SS with inputs from the industry gathered from three feedback sessions with key stakeholder groups (bunker surveyors, bunker suppliers/bunker craft operators, bunker buyers) that were organised in late 2017.

57

FUEL QUANTITY

T

he draft SS also incorporated inputs from a public consultation.

Enterprise Singapore says: “The broad representation from public, private sector and other stakeholders as well as robust stakeholder engagement through the national standardisation platform enable the stakeholders to collectively shape the development and implementation of the standard in line with national needs and international developments.

The requirements are reviewed in the updates of the standard and the decision by consensus based processes help the industry to upgrade and adopt the latest industry practices.”

It is expected that SS 648 will come into force on 1 July this year. IBIA played a major role in preparing the industry for the initial roll-out of MFM systems under TR 48 and subsequent continued training for those in the industry. Now IBIA is in the process of obtaining MPA approval to be an authorised course provider for SS 648:2019.

Singapore has encouraged the international use of TR 48 and, now, SS 648. They are being used as base standards by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as it develops two new standards: ISO 22192 Bunkering of marine fuel using the Coriolis mass flow meter system, and ISO 21562 Bunker fuel mass flow meters on receiving vessel. Enterprise Singapore says: “The internationalisation of SS 648 helps to encourage the harmonisation of best practices and increase operational efficiency of shipping industry.”

Singapore has pioneered the use of mass flow meters ©iStock

58

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

ENVIRONMENT iStock

©

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Less than a month into 2020, VLSFO came under attack by environmental groups.

Unni Einemo examines potential undesirable side-effects of the 0.50% sulphur limit

F

ew involved in the bunker and shipping industries will have failed to notice the controversy surrounding the use of very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) blends to comply with the 0.50% sulphur limit imposed on fuel for ships since the start of 2020. Throughout 2019 debate was raging around the potential safety implications of such fuel, both regarding the inherent quality of new blend recipes and incompatibility risk associated with co-mingling VLSFOs from different sources onboard ships. Those concerns remain with us but at least they are well understood by now. IBIA, among others, have worked hard to provide the supply and shipping industries with the tools to produce, handle and use compliant fuels safely.

But in January 2020, VLSFO came under attack amid claims these blends would cause an increase in emissions of black carbon because they are more aromatic than the high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) they have been made to replace. If that’s true, this will be one of several examples of unintended consequences associated with MARPOL Annex VI, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulation dealing with air emissions from shipping.

The main goal of reducing the sulphur limit for marine fuels to 0.50% sulphur is to improve air quality to reduce shipping’s negative impact on human health.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

IBIA has for some time, however, been pointing out the “MARPOL Annex VI paradox”: almost everything we do to improve air quality has a negative impact on efforts to stem global warming, either directly linked to what happens on ships or indirectly due increasing emissions from other sources to provide ships with cleaner, less polluting fuels. The latter forms part of the debate around lifecycle, or well to emissions of gases that contribute to global warming, such as increased CO2 emissions from refineries to produce lower sulphur fuels and methane slip during the production and distribution of LNG. I’m not going into detail on that here. Suffice it to say it’s hard to get a handle on it because numbers presented by various studies vary a lot.

The reduction in the sulphur limit outside emission control areas (ECAs) from 3.50% to 0.50% at the start of 2020 may have a positive side effect because low sulphur fuels cost more, incentivising more efficient ships. Ships using exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS), or scrubbers, however, will emit slightly more CO2 due to the extra energy required to run the scrubber. They may even sail faster and hence burn even more fuel because they can continue to use cheaper high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO). These are among the most obvious direct impacts that few would dispute, although actually quantifying them is less straightforward. There are other, less obvious and even harder to quantify direct GHG impacts from ships associated with meeting sulphur emission limits. These include methane slip from ships using LNG (which depends on what type of engines and fuel systems they use), how much black carbon they emit, and just how big the impact will be from the huge reduction in shipping’s sulphate emissions, which have a cooling effect.

Direct impacts from ships relate to how much CO2 or other greenhouse gases (GHG) they emit. On the positive side, IMO has introduced mandatory energy efficiency measures under MARPOL Annex VI aimed at making ships technically and operationally more efficient, consequently reducing CO2 emissions per tonne of cargo carried by ships.

Black carbon – facts or speculation?

The IMO begun concrete work on how to address black carbon (BC) emissions from shipping almost a decade ago. It is not an easy subject and many aspects of it are difficult to understand, including for example how to measure it most effectively and the exact relationship between fuel types and BC emissions.

Several studies have told us so, and while estimates vary hugely regarding just how many premature deaths will be avoided thanks to the new global low-sulphur regime, the positive impact of the MARPOL Annex VI regulation is not in dispute.

59

ENVIRONMENT

A

mong the many studies submitted to the IMO on the subject over the years, it has been asserted that fuel type has a significant impact with HSFO generally singled out as the worst offender. It hasn’t always been clear-cut however, as some studies pointed to engine load as a bigger factor than the fuel type and the fuel sulphur content, at least when talking about petroleumbased fuels ranging from low sulphur marine gasoil (MGO) to HSFO, and everything in between.

Like all particulate matter resulting from burning stuff, including fuels, BC is bad for human health. It has one other key attribute; it is light-absorbing and therefore BC, or soot in layman’s terms, is associated with global warning.

Suspended in the atmosphere it warms by absorbing sunlight, while soot deposits make ice and snow melt faster. This is why IMO’s work has been focusing on reducing BC emission from shipping in the Arctic, where its impact is most severe. LNG is a clear winner for reducing all PM, including BC, but there’s no near-term plan to require ships in the Arctic to stop using oil-based fuels. There is, however, parallel work underway at the IMO to develop measures to reduce risks of use and carriage of heavy fuel oil (HFO) as fuel by ships in Arctic waters.

The outcome will likely be a ban on carrying and using HFO in the Arctic, subject to an assessment of the impacts on the region to ensure the positives (reduced pollution risk) outweigh the negatives (increasing cost of shipping activities in the region).

Work relating to BC emissions, and the development of an HFO ban in the Arctic, are both on the agenda at the 7th session of the IMO’s Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response in mid-February. Among the papers submitted to PPR 7 is a study which claims new blends of marine fuels with 0.50% sulphur content increase BC emissions by 10% to 85% compared to HFO with a 2.5% sulphur content and by 67% to 145% compared to DMA-grade MGO with 0.1% sulphur.

60

The reason for this increase is that fuels with 0.5% sulphur content used in the study contained a high proportion of aromatic compounds in a range of 70% to 95%, compared to 50% in the 2.5% sulphur HFO reference sample and 20% in the DMA reference sample.

The study, submitted to the IMO on 15 November 2019, was followed by submissions from FOEI, WWF, Pacific Environment and CSC calling for urgent action to prevent the use of 0.50% sulphur fuel blends in the Arctic and ensure only distillates are used.

In January, the Clean Arctic Alliance sent a letter addressed to the co-authors of the Joint Industry Guidance (JIG) on “The supply and use of 0.50%-sulphur marine fuel”, including IBIA. In the letter, which was widely publicised, the Joint Industry Guidance (JIG) was criticised for making “no mention of low sulphur fuel blends containing high levels of aromatic compounds nor of an increase of black carbon emissions of potentially up to 2.45 times that of the distillate DMA.” The letter also insinuated that the industry associations behind the JIG should have been aware of this and should have immediately sought to halt the production of these fuels and alert the IMO. IBIA was surprised by the study’s assertion that the 0.50% sulphur fuel oil blends are expected to have higher aromatic content than traditional HSFO, especially as the expectation prior to 2020 was that many of the new marine fuel blends would be more paraffinic in nature. The shift to 0.50% sulphur fuels is still in its early days but early indications from several fuel testing agencies have indicated that 0.50% sulphur fuels seen so far tend to be more paraffinic and less aromatic than the HSFOs they have replaced. As such, it seems premature to draw any valid and meaningful conclusions on the level of black carbon emissions associated with the use of 0.50% sulphur fuels.

When the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee decided, at its 70th session (MEPC 70) in October 2016,

to implement the 0.50% sulphur limit in 2020, the availability study used as the basis for the decision said blended fuels with between 0.10% and 0.50% sulphur would account for 73% of global consumption from international shipping. As industry prepared, fuel producers began formulating VLSFO blends intended to replace HSFO as economically as possible for use by the global fleet. The focus was not on producing fuels specifically for use in the Arctic, although concerns about the cold flow properties of distillates for use in cold regions was taken into account to ensure ships don’t end up with solidified fuel, like candlewax, in their tanks. The primary focus during 2018 and 2019 was on whether the VLSFO blends would be safe, with a particular focus on stability and compatibility because more paraffinic blend components were expected to be used and might create issues when mixed with fuel components that have traditionally been more aromatic in nature. The JIG, which was published in August 2019, was developed to support suppliers, ship managers and seafarers prepare and implement the use of 0.50% sulphur fuels as safely as possible. The document was entirely focused on the safe handling and use of compliant fuels and did not investigate or comment on any other issue.

IBIA, along with co-authors of the JIG, supports a thorough scientific debate of the black carbon issue at the IMO. Furthermore, IBIA believes IMO decisions should be based on solid evidence and science that stands up to scrutiny, and it is important that all interested parties retain open and inquisitive minds when examining potentially conflicting information.

The work underway to develop a ban on the use and carriage of HFO in the Arctic could offer a way forward. PPR has been tasked with developing a definition of HFO, taking into account regulation 43 of MARPOL Annex I which gives a definition of heavy grade oil (HGO).

All carriage of HGO, as fuel and as cargo, is banned in the Antarctic.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

The SOx paradox Sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions form sulphate aerosols and while these increase human health risks, they have another less discussed side-effect: sulphates formed by ships burning HSFO contribute a cooling effect, both directly by reflecting energy back into space, and indirectly by interacting with clouds and making them brighter so they reflect more sunlight away from the Earth. A paper published in the journal Nature in February 2018 estimated that implementation of the 2020 sulphur limit for ships would result in approximately 75% reduction in shipping SOx emissions globally. This meant policymakers “face trade-offs whereby achieving human health benefits may be associated with climate change,” the paper said.

Its authors included several renowned academics from the US and the Finnish Meteorological Institute.

A more recently released study into this phenomenon, led by researchers from Imperial College London, together with University College London and the University of Oxford concluded that sulphate aerosols have the most significant impact on cloud formation compared to other components of ship exhaust. The team studied more than 17,000 ship tracks from satellite observations and matched them to the movements of individual ships using their onboard GPS. The study was able to assess the impact of the introduction of the 0.10% sulphur limit in emission control areas (ECAs) where the researchers found that “ship tracks nearly completely disappeared compared to before the restrictions, under similar weather conditions.”

The most publicised part of the study’s finding was the observation that it might be possible to monitor compliance with the 0.50% sulphur limit because ships burning HSFO “create a measurable difference in the satellite-observed cloud properties.”

This could indeed be a useful tool on the high seas where compliance monitoring is tricky.

The study notes that the impact of aerosols on cloud properties “is one of the leading uncertainties in the human forcing of the climate” and the team behind it want to find out how to predict more accurately the influence of sulphur aerosols on cloud formation on a larger scale to feed into climate models.

Does this mean that the IMO will reconsider the global sulphur cap because of the climate change impact? At MEPC 70, IBIA proposed that a “global ECA” covering all countries’ shores could improve coastal air quality to a similar extent as a global cap and also reduce overall global warming by allowing continued use of HSFO out on the high seas. It wasn’t the first time this idea has been mooted, and it might not be the last, but it would require a major revision of MARPOL Annex VI which is complex and time-consuming. There was no time for that at MEPC 70, which was under huge political pressure to ensure the 0.50% sulphur limit would enter into force in 2020. The key concern was to improve the life expectancy of populations affected by air pollution from ships. Sometimes medicine comes with undesirable side effects, but as long as the benefits outweigh them, the prescription won’t change.

iStock

©

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

61

ENVIRONMENT

H

GO is defined as all oil with a density at 15°C higher than 900 kg/ m3 or a kinematic viscosity at 50°C higher than 180 mm2/s. This definition means all the marine fuel grades meeting current ISO 8217 marine distillate (DM) specifications would be allowed for carriage and use in the Antarctic. Residual grades (RM), although several of them have a kinematic viscosity at 50°C below 180 cSt, all have a maximum density limit in excess of 900 kg/m3, which would not be allowed. Although many of the VLSFO blends seen so far have viscosity below 180 cSt, most have tested above 900 kg/m3 threshold used in the HGO definition and as such would be eliminated by using this definition. To help reduce BC emissions in the Arctic further in the future, investigations could be made into including a limit on aromatic content in HFO. If so, we need to understand how it can measured and tested by a recognised test method, and whether we need a new ISO 8217 specification parameter to do so.

ENVIRONMENT NEWS

DROP IT IN THE OCEAN? Big names team up in radical carbon capture and disposal project

the best positioned fuels for research and development into net zero fuels for shipping are alcohol, bio-methane, and ammonia.

“The main challenge is not at sea but on land,” says Maersk’s Chief Operating Officer, Søren Toft: “Technology changes inside the vessels are minor when compared to the massive innovative solutions and fuel transformation that must be found to produce and distribute sustainable energy sources on a global scale. We need to have a commercially viable carbon neutral vessel in service 11 years from now.”

S

everal major companies, including shipowners NYK, Sovcomflot, Knutsen OAS and Ardmore, shipyard DSME and mining company Vale are taking part in a project led Denmark-based Maritime Development Center to develop onboard carbon capture and storage.

The DecarbonICE concept is to freeze the CO2 in a ship’s exhaust, form the resulting dry ice into streamlined ice blocks and dump them in deep ocean areas. A statement explains that, since the CO2 ice is heavier than water, it will drop to the sea floor, penetrate the sediments and be stored permanently, primarily as CO2 hydrate.

However, it adds: “Onboard carbon capture with subsequent storage at appropriate sites may also be part of an eventual solution.”

DecarbonICE is based on two new main ideas for the capture and storage, its backers say. The explain: “The CO2 and other GHG’s in the ship exhaust are captured on board in a cryogenic process and turned into dry ice. Proven offshore technology is then applied during normal ship operations to transport the dry ice into the sea floor sediments.

62

Here the CO2 will be safely and permanently stored as liquid CO2 and CO2 hydrate.”

The project started on 1 October last year and will run through to the end of this year. The aim is to prepare a feasibility study and to initiate the IMO approval process for the technology.

Chairman of the DecarbonICE project, former DNVGL President and CEO Henrik Madsen says: “While we support a final goal of availability of zero carbon or carbon neutral fuels, we believe that a bridging carbon free solution is needed, which can utilize existing assets in terms of ships, propulsion systems and fuels. The DecarbonICE project is intended to offer exactly that, and at a predicted low energy penalty well below 10%.”

Alcohol, bio-methane and ammonia are “best-positioned fuels to reach zero net emissions” A new study by AP Moller - Maersk and Lloyd’s Register (LR) asserts that, based on market projections,

The three fuel pathways identified in the study have relatively similar cost projections but different challenges and opportunities. “It is too early to rule anything out completely, but we are confident that these three are the right places to start. Consequently, we will spend 80% of our focus on this working hypothesis and will keep the remaining 20% to look at other options,” says Toft.

“The next decade requires industry collaboration as shipping considers its decarbonisation options and looks closely at the potential of fuels like alcohol, bio-methane and ammonia,” says LR CEO Alastair Marsh. “This joint modelling exercise between Lloyd’s Register and Maersk indicates that shipowners must invest for fuel flexibility and it is also clear that this transition presents more of an operating expenditure rather than capital expenditure challenge.”

The study notes that alcohols (ethanol & methanol) are liquids which are not highly toxic, and have various possible production pathways. They can be produced directly from biomass and/or via renewable hydrogen combined with carbon from either biomass or carbon capture. Existing solutions for handling the low flash point and for burning alcohols are well proven. Ethanol and methanol are fully mixable in the vessel’s bunker tanks, creating bunkering flexibility.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

Ammonia is truly carbon free and can be produced from renewable electricity.

The energy conversion rate of this system is higher than that of biomaterial-based systems, but the production pathway cannot tap into potential energy sources such as waste biomass. The main challenge for ammonia is that it is highly toxic and even small accidents can create major risks to the crew and the environment.

The transition from current to future applications is also a huge challenge for ammonia.

According to Maersk and Lloyds Register, batteries and fuel cells are unlikely to have an immediate role in propelling commercially viable carbon neutral deep-sea vessels.

Meanwhile, Lloyd’s Register (LR) has granted Approval in Principle to Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Co. and MAN Energy Solutions for an ammonia-fuelled 23,000 TEU Ultra-Large Container Ship (ULCS) concept design, said to be the first ammonia-as-fuel design of its kind in China.

LR facilitated hazard identification (HAZID) workshops to determine potential hazards throughout the design phase, covering areas limited to the ammonia-fuelled engine and the external piping systems. LR also provided technical guidance regarding the ship’s design and the provision of technical materials, in accordance with the goals and functional requirements from current and anticipated regulatory requirements, procedures and guidelines.

FinCo Fuel Group buys GoodFuels FinCo Fuel Group, active in the downstream energy market with a broad portfolio of fuel products, has expanded its network with the acquisition of a majority stake in GoodNRG, the holding company of renewable fuels pioneer GoodFuels.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

A statement says the acquisition will enable GoodFuels to tap into the complementary sourcing, supply management and logistics expertise of the wider FinCo Fuel Group.

Pieter Peeters, CEO, FinCo Fuel Nederland, said: “With this acquisition, FinCo Fuel Group is sending a clear signal about our ambition and commitment towards supporting the sustainable mobility transition.

GoodFuels has pioneered the sustainable fuel market for shipping and is an important market leader across other transportation sectors.”

Hybrid powered dredger deal The technology group Wärtsilä has signed a strategic development agreement with Chinese stateowned shipbuilder CSSC Huangpu Wenchong Shipbuilding Company Limited. The five-year agreement is aimed at the joint development of a hybrid powered dredger, but the two parties say it could possibly extend to other hybrid vessels as well. The agreement was signed on 3 December, 2019 at the Marintec conference and exhibition in Shanghai.

Wärtsilä will support Huangpu Wenchong during the design and construction phases with technology innovations, system selection, performance calculations, and long-term services.

The initial work will be based on a hopper dredger, a vessel that the shipyard already builds. Evaluations will be carried out to determine the most suitable hybrid solution for that class of dredgers.

Shore power trial for coasters in Rotterdam The Municipality of Rotterdam and the Port of Rotterdam Authority started a trial on 13 December to supply small sea-going vessels with electricity at the Parkkade quays in central Rotterdam. The project will cost €500,000 which will mainly come from the Government of the Netherlands through the Dutch National Collaboration Programme on Air Quality.

The vessels will then not need to run their diesel generators to generate power for use on board, resulting in reduced air pollution and noise. The trial will last around five months. Five different systems will be tested during this period. ”Shore-based power enables us to kill two birds with one stone: cleaner air and less CO2,” stated Arno Bonte, Alderman for air quality and sustainability. ”I’m expecting this trial to give us insight into using shore power in more locations, particularly in urban areas.”

Allard Castelein, CEO Port of Rotterdam Authority, observed: “We’re continuing to go that step further with shore-based power. This has been compulsory for inland shipping for some ten years. Stena Line in Hoek van Holland has it and we’re going to install this for Heerema at Rozenburg.

In the coming decades many more vessels will need to use shore power. But the larger the vessel, the more complicated and expensive this is. So it takes time.”

Following the trial on Parkkade, a second trial is planned for this year. It will focus on innovative shore power concepts for larger sea-going vessels. Funding of €1,500,000 has been earmarked for the project.

CSSC Huangpu Wenchong Shipbuilding Company Limited and Wartsila agree to cooperate in promoting hybrid propulsion solutions

63

ENVIRONMENT NEWS

H

owever, the transition of the industry towards alcohol-based solutions is yet to be defined. Bio-methane on the other hand has a potential smooth transition given existing technology and infrastructure. The challenge however is ‘methane slip’, the emission of unburned methane along the entire supply chain.

COMPANY NEWS - CLEAN MARINE

In the state-of-the-art factory in Batam, Indonesia, Clean Marine can produce 2 scrubbers daily

SCRUBBERS ALREADY PROVING THEIR WORTH The CEO of one of the world’s leading scrubber manufacturer, Clean Marine, shares his views on the effects of IMO 2020, green shipping, and scrubber technology development

F

ollowing the implementation of new limits on sulphur emission that came into effect on 1st of January 2020, the global shipping market has already seen some big changes. The largest disruption has so far been the significant cost savings that scrubber-fitted vessels benefit from.

For example, with a fuel price spread of over $300/MT between HFO and VLSFO, which was the case in early January, scrubber-fitted VLCCs had an average cost saving of $23,000 per day compared with vessels running on VLSFO. “Shipowners who have installed scrubbers are probably delighted with their investment,” says Nils Høy-Petersen, CEO of Clean Marine.

Scrubbers since 2004 Clean Marine’s research and development into scrubbers started already in 2004. It has since pioneered and delivered hybrid, open and closed loop multi stream scrubbers to customers worldwide.

Fast-forward 15 years and the company is today one of the world’s leading supplier of exhaust gas cleaning systems, or marine scrubbers, following last year’s announced merger between Clean Marine and its competitor FMSI.

64

In January this year, the merger was formally completed. The company now services clients around the world from Singapore, Indonesia, China, Norway; USA, Bulgaria and Norway.

“The consolidation with FMSI is a good marriage,” says Høy-Petersen. “The merger provides additional scale and ensure continued investment in developing the best possible product and services for our customers. It also enables us to offer higher manufacturing volumes and shorten delivery times to shipowners’ benefit.”

Still strong scrubber demand Unsurprisingly, Clean Marine experienced a high demand for scrubbers from shipowners that wanted to be compliant with scrubbers before IMO 2020 kicked in. The company has a total order backlog / reference list of in excess of 250 exhaust gas cleaning systems.

After IMO 2020 came into effect, the company has seen a new interest for scrubbers as shipowners have tried and tested the products, have compared producers and scrubbers vs. VLSFO and see the benefits of installing a scrubber.

“Given the current fuel spread predictions for 2020/2021, we are seeing increased shipowner interest in our scrubber technology.” says Høy-Petersen.

Much has been written about delays at yards because of slower than planned scrubber installations. As one of the pioneers in the scrubber industry, Clean Marine has also been through the infancy stage that any new product category must tackle. However, the lessons learned from this experience have been used constructively. The large majority of the company’s retrofit projects are on schedule, as it has invested a lot of time and money upfront in training of site personnel assisting shipowners and shipyards with timely and correct installation “We have had some delays on some of the first retrofit projects in a sister series, but such delays have to a large degree been equalised by quicker installation on board sister vessels number 2, 3 and 4 in a series, simply because it is a copy/paste job,” adds Høy-Petersen.

Unfounded washwater concerns Another recent discussion topic in the industry has been about whether washwater from marine scrubbers transfer harmful emissions from air to sea or not.

Some international ports have decided to ban open loop scrubbers fearing that washwater discharge from marine scrubbers are harmful to the environment.

However, in recent years, numerous independent scientific studies have all concluded that washwater from scrubbers do not harm the marine environment.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

he latest independent study in this field was published in December 2019 by CE Delft, a research organisation in the Netherlands. Its conclusion was that ‘ships that use exhaust gas cleaning systems to comply with the IMO sulphur regulations have a small impact on the water quality in ports, when compared to future EU standards for priority substances in water’.

The simplified scrubber also reduces installation time from 4-5 weeks to 3 weeks, thereby cutting docking costs significantly too. A prefabricated electric room is one of the solutions that enable significantly shorter installation time.

All critical components on the open deck scrubber are protected from harsh sea conditions.

The aim of the study was to provide a method for evaluating the impacts of using open-loop exhaust gas cleaning systems in ports on water and sediment and to test the methodology conservatively in a series of model ports, using empirical data of almost 300 washwater samples from 53 different ships.

New u-type scrubber Clean Marine also offers a U-type scrubber that is highly competitive in price and is ideal for meeting IMO2020 regulations for not only tankers but perhaps especially bulk carriers, car carriers and container ships. The U-type scrubber is a simple, flexible and cost-effective packed bed scrubber with no moving parts. It has a low operating expense and no chemicals are required.

The CE Delft study concludes that ‘ships that use Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCSs) to comply with the IMO sulphur regulations have a small impact on the water quality in ports when compared to future EU standards for priority substances in water.’

Clean Marine’s scrubbers have been designed and prepared for hybrid operation from the very beginning in 2005, but the company also offers open and closed loop scrubbers. Shipowners with open loop scrubbers installed choose to make a fuel switch in ports where open loop scrubbers have been banned. As such, Clean Marine have not been overly exposed to port bans.

Second generation scrubber brings costs down Clean Marine has experienced great success with its first-generation scrubber technology. Still, the company continues to invest in new scrubber technologies in order to bring down costs for shipowners, particularly for bulk and container shipping companies.

Last year, Clean Marine therefore launched a next generation scrubber product aimed at cutting shipowners’ investment and installation costs plus scrubber operating expenditure. The newly developed SOx scrubber reduces total installed weight of infrastructure by more than two thirds, which means significant capex savings on the scrubber itself and no need to strengthen the ship structure prior to installation.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

The U-type is built from a very high-grade material (SMO254) which ensures that the scrubber will last the entire lifetime of the vessel. Auxiliary equipment such as pumps and analyzing units are sourced from high quality manufacturers.

The U-type is the best option for costconscious owners looking for a simple open loop scrubber from a supplier that is renowned for delivering high quality products and services.

Encourages green shipping Clean Marine is keen to point out that scrubbers do not only represent a tool to allow shipowners to meet the IMO 2020 regulatory requirements. Høy-Petersen firmly believes that scrubbers are also an important steppingstone towards transforming the shipping industry into becoming more sustainable from an environmental perspective.

“For Clean Marine, IMO 2020 represent an opportunity to establish a business that has the ambition to solve even more challenging environmental issues. We see the SOx focus of IMO 2020 to be the start of a journey that shall address climate challenge and transform shipping into a truly green and sustainable industry.

We would like to contribute and participate in this effort. IMO should be credited for keeping all avenues open when putting up challenging targets.

COMPANY NEWS - CLEAN MARINE

T

The U-type is the best option for costconscious owners looking for a simple open loop scrubber from a supplier that is renowned for delivering high quality products and services.

This allows innovations like maritime scrubbers to be developed to address the IMO 2020 challenges, but also as steppingstones for further R&D and developments. The shipowners embracing new ideas and solutions should also be highly credited for contributing to such development.” says Høy-Petersen.

There is a clear megatrend toward greener shipping, driven by expectations and demands for the shipping industry to become more sustainable.

“The green shipping wave is still in its early stages and we expect that it will continue to grow over the next decade,” concludes Nils Høy-Petersen, CEO of Clean Marine.

CEO Clean Marine, Nils Høy-Petersen

65

IT

ABS and DSME are to jointly explore decarbonisation and digitalisation strategies for very large vessels

PLOTTING A DIGITAL FUTURE The digital revolution is already changing the bunkering industry and that is set to continue apace.

We take a look at several significant projects currently underway

D

ata analytics companies Yxney Maritime and Grieg Connect are partnering with the Norwegian NOx Fund to develop a data-driven digital solution for automated NOx emissions reporting. Offshore support company Solstad Offshore and ferry operator Fjord1 are to participate in the pilot phase of the project.

The Norwegian NOx Fund records NOx emissions from all vessels operating in Norwegian waters and collects a fee for emissions per vessel. The two companies say: “Calculating and reporting emissions has historically been a manual chore for shipowners, leaving a relatively large margin for error, and adding to the workload of crew and onshore staff.”

The new system, NOxDigital, will provide a digital infrastructure for emissions reporting based on the Yxney Maress software for monitoring fleet energy consumption and Grieg Connect’s platform for high-res position data and geofencing technology. The solution automatically detects whether a vessel is operating in taxable waters. Data on energy usage and AIS data will complete the picture, displayed on a unique digital dashboard for each user.

“With full control over fuel consumption, location, and vessel activity,

66

we can provide a much more accurate emissions picture than with manual estimations,” says Svein Erik Isaksen, HSEQ Environmental Engineer in Solstad Offshore.

“And since all the data is digitalized, reporting can be automated, which in turn will lead to higher quality and more consistency in the emission reporting.”

“The new system will also serve as a facilitating tool for helping to further reduce emissions,” adds Erik Aadland in Grieg Connect. “With this platform, we are now building scalable international maritime technology that supports a sustainable future for the shipping industry.”

The collaboration has received support from Innovation Norway through their Environmental Technology Program.

The solution is being rolled out to the offshore and ferry sector this spring, with other sectors to follow suit. The next step will be to make the system available for other jurisdictions, such as regional bodies.

Digitising decarbonisation US-based classification society ABS and South Korea’s Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) have signed a joint development project (JDP) agreement to explore decarbonisation and digitalisation strategies for VLCCs and ULCCs.

The JDP aims for DSME to develop ABS approved VLCC and ULCC vessel designs, which offer potential solutions to IMO 2030 decarbonisation goals. The JDP also covers Onshore Remote Monitoring, SMART and Autonomy technology as well as development and review of cyber security aspects associated with the DSME Smart Ship platform.

“There is increasing demand in the marine industry for vessels which have a low carbon and greenhouse gas emission footprint. Leveraging digital technologies provides a means to assist in addressing these decarbonisation challenges.

At the same time, the increased connectivity onboard vessels can introduce cyber related threats which need to be appropriately addressed.

DSME and ABS will work together to evaluate solutions to address the decarbonisation challenges, including exploring the potential of digital technology,” said Odin Kwon, DSME CTO, Engineering & Technology Unit.

First fleet for blockchain fuel tracking system Monaco-based ship manager Marfin Management is to use the BunkerTrace system to track marine fuel on its fleet of handymax and ultramax dry cargo vessels,

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

IT

U

sing synthetic DNA markers at specific points of the supply chain and record each transaction in a blockchainbased solution.

Marfin’s CEO Alex Albertini said: “Our aim is to take back control of the entire bunkering process, from insurance and supply to purchasing and bunkering.

By adding BunkerTrace’s unique tags at specific points of the bunkering process from terminals to bunker barges and being able to validate the stem in real time onboard the vessel, while uploading all the process information on a blockchain infrastructure will create full transparency and accountability for every stakeholder in every bunkering operations. We need cleaner fuel for a cleaner industry not just through regulations. This partnership combines Marfin’s strong environmental leadership with our interest in using innovative technology to benefit our vessels, crew and customers.”

Marc Johnson, CEO at BunkerTrace, added: “With the implementation of the IMO sulphur cap, owners, managers and fuel suppliers need to manage their fuels with greater scrutiny. As several new players enter the bunkering market and the use of blended fuel increases, it’s more important than ever that owners and managers have confidence in the fuel they are buying and loading. Using blockchain in marine fuels operations is already a natural fit for managing data in an often fragmented chain;

but combining this digital technology with synthetic DNA to create unique tags linked to key data such as location, provenance and chain of custody, is what really makes this such a solid system for owners, insurers, suppliers, and crew to use.”

Used oil analysis Shell Marine has launched a new IT platform for its existing used oil analysis programme Shell LubeAnalyst.

The company says: “The launch comes after years of planning and development and is the first step in demonstrating how Shell Marine will digitalise its service offerings to customers in the future.”

The Shell LubeAnalyst next generation platform offers a much simpler sample management process, which includes online sample registration and label printing that remove the need to complete sample labels manually.

This helps to minimise the likelihood of errors and makes life easier for the crew onboard.

“Drawing on Shell Marine’s 30-year knowledge base of sampling, analysis and diagnostics, Shell LubeAnalyst feeds directly into maintenance programmes,” says Joris van Brussel, General Manager, Shell Marine. “It provides vital insights when operating profiles or other circumstances change, such as fuel sulphur content restrictions. Enhanced lubricant analytics and reporting are driving the digitalised technical services that optimise productivity.”

Upgrades include an intuitive customer portal with personalised dashboards, interactive charts and an easy-to-use oil analysis reporting format which allows vessel managers to oversee lubricant performance across their fleets via the Shell LubeAnalyst homepage. Users also benefit from a simple in-box highlighting action and attention comments and recommendations from Shell Marine engineers as part of the enhanced reporting functionality.

Shell LubeAnalyst also gives registered owners access to Shell Marine’s complete library of recommendations covering all the key equipment and lubricant grades.

The Shell LubeAnalyst mobile app is available now, allowing customers to read all test reports on a mobile device and use the new scanand-go labels, turning the sample registration process into a truly digital experience.

“Digitalised technical services will be transformative because they help to take uncertainty out of some of the variables determining engine performance,” adds van Brussel. “In times of change, part of our role as a trusted partner is to ensure that customers have the right information available at the right time and in the right place.”

IT is making fuel analysis more efficient ©iStock

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

67

LNG

LNG bunkering has grown quickly since Shell LNG bunker vessel, Cardissa. delivered its first stem in 2018. ©Shell

LNG “COMPETITIVE” FOR VLCCS New study supports LNG as fuel for VLCC newbuildings

L

NG promotion body SEA\LNG says the results of its third investment study underlines LNG as a “compelling investment solution” for VLCCs on the Middle East Gulf to China trade route.

According to SEA\LNG the study, conducted by simulation and analytics expert Opsiana, demonstrates clear benefits of LNG as a marine fuel for a newbuild 300,000 dwt VLCC on the Middle East Gulf to China trade route, in comparison with other alternatives currently available and scalable to the shipping industry across three fuel pricing scenarios.

The business case compares the relative investment performance of four propulsion alternatives: a conventional VLCC sailing with very low sulphur fuel oil; a scrubberequipped VLCC sailing mostly with heavy fuel oil; and two LNG powered VLCCs, one with a high-pressure 2-stroke engine, the other a lowpressure 2-stroke engine.

The study indicates that LNG as a marine fuel delivers a strong return on investment on a net present value (NPV) basis over a 10-year horizon. “The analysis is bolstered by compelling paybacks from three to five years,” SEA\LNG says.

68

Peter Keller, Chairman, SEA\LNG, commented: “This is the third in a series of investment studies commissioned to support ship owners and operators in decision-making at this crucial time. In addition to the positive results of studies undertaken by Opsiana for the liner and PCTC segments, this study underlines the compelling investment case for VLCCs.”

Aft-mounted membrane fuel tank for bulkers US-based classification society ABS has granted approval in principle (AIP) to international naval architects Deltamarin and French LNG specialist GTT for a dualfuel Newcastlemax bulk carrier design incorporating a membrane fuel tank sited in the aft of the vessel.

The route was chosen, SEA\LNG says, because it is the major energy trade corridor from the Middle East to China. It asserts: “Providing greater clarity for those investing in LNG, the study highlights several key findings: compelling returns on an NPV basis, the diminishing CAPEX hurdle for LNG engines, LNG delivers competitive energy costs, has higher environmental performance, and is the most financially effective long-term method for complying with the IMO 2020 sulphur cap.”

Deltamarin, GTT and ABS have been cooperating on the development of an LNG-fuelled energy efficient Newcastlemax bulk carrier that is intended to meet current and future environmental targets, by introducing GTT Membrane type LNG Tanks with LNG fuel stored at atmospheric pressure and designed to ABS Class.

The LNG body also comments: “Importantly, the higher investment return was achieved without including the significant additional benefits and branding value gained by choosing LNG as a more environmentally friendly marine fuel. When corporate sustainability and environmental goals are included, choosing LNG as a marine fuel brings additional benefits.”

The AIP addresses the design’s introduction of a membrane fuel tank sited in the aft of the vessel which will not impinge on available cargo space or the vessel’s hull dimensions.

“A design such as this would allow owners and operators to capitalise on the potential of LNG as marine fuel to help meet emissions reduction objectives without having to compromise on cargo load,” said Patrick Janssens, ABS Vice President Global Gas Solutions.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

LNG

Pavilion and Total in Singapore tie up In another sign that a global LNG bunkering infrastructure is starting to be put together, Pavilion Energy Singapore and Total Marine Fuels Global Solutions (TMFGS) have signed a 10-year agreement to jointly develop an LNG bunker supply chain in the port of Singapore. The deal follows a heads of agreement inked by the two companies in June 2018.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

The cooperation includes the shared long-term use of the 12,000 cubic metres GTT Mark III Flex membrane LNG bunker vessel newbuild that will allow each party to supply LNG to its respective customers.

Pavilion Energy also chartered its first LNG bunker barge newbuild from Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (MOL) in January this year, with the vessel currently undergoing construction at Sembcorp Marine’s Tuas Boulevard Yard.

In May 2019, it performed Singapore’s first commercial ship-to-ship LNG bunkering operation, which comprised a reload of 2,000 cubic metres of LNG from a small-scale tanker to a receiving heavy-lift commercial vessel.

The barge shared with Pavilion Energy will add to the two already chartered by Total from MOL. The first, an 18,600m3 vessel ordered in February 2018 will be positioned in Rotterdam from 2020, and her sister ship ordered in December 2019 will be positioned in Marseilles from 2021.

69

XIII Russian Forum “Current State and Prospects for Development of Russian Bunker Services Market” Saint Petersburg | June 25-26, 2020.

Russian bunker fuel market in 2019 and after 01.01.20 – main changes and trends Production of high and low sulfur fuels in RF – what had changed in 2020 Implementation of new fuel blends – practical experience (technical characteristics, stability, compatibility analytical methods, viscosity, flash point) LNG projects and LNG bunkering in Russian port Regional bunker markets Development of bunker terminals and bunker fleet in Russia

mrbunker.ru | info@mrbunker.ru

RUSSIAN NEWS iStock

©

“NO MORE SUBSIDIES FOR VLSFO PRODUCTION” Olga Bogacheva reports on a Russian bunker scene that is adapting to the IMO’s 0.50% sulphur limit

T

he Russian Ministry of Energy does not see any need for additional measures to stimulate production of low-sulphur marine fuel.

Currently subsidies for the production of low-sulphur fuel oil are being given for two refineries in Khabarovsk, in the Russian Far East. However, according to a Ministry of Energy spokesperson, expansion of the practice of subsidising low sulphur fuel would not make sense, given that demand for VLSFO (maximum 0.50% sulphur product) has increased dramatically. They added that the modernisation of refineries and increased cracking will reduce production of HSFO, a residual product of crude oil refining.

Supporting the government’s approach, Gazprom Neft has said it can supply up to 1.6 million tonnes of VLSFO. Gazprom Neft has been investing in increased cracking capacity at its refineries, to the extent that it will almost completely halt production of residual fuel oil in favour of medium distillates in the near future. Fuels with sulphur content of 0.50% and 0.10% are already produced at the company’s Omsk and Moscow plants.

Gazpromneft Marine Bunker currently supplies 2.5 million tonnes a year.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

In addition to providing marine fuels that are compliant with sulphur limits directly from refineries, the company also plans to use traditional blending methods at its terminals to produce compliant products.

Meanwhile, LUKOIL is now producing VLSFO at its Volgograd refinery, with annual output expected to be about 1 million tonnes. LUKOIL has been producing ULSFO (maximum 0.10% sulphur fuel oil) at its Perm refinery since 2015, with production also running at about 1 million tonnes. Most of this is supplied to vessels in the Baltic Sea. The company manages four refineries in Russia, at Perm, Volgograd, Nizhny Novgorod and Ukhta. It has three refineries outside Russia in Europe, in Italy, Romania and Bulgaria, and also owns a 45% stake in refineries in the Netherlands.

Gazpromneft plans LNG bunker fleet Gazpromneft Marine Bunker intends to operate a fleet of at least three LNG bunkering vessels within a decade.

The first, with capacity of 5800 m3, is already under construction and is due to enter service in the first half of 2021.

The LNG will be supplied by the production, storage and shipment facility at Portovaya, in the Leningrad region, near the border with Finland. Contracts have already been worked out not only for the bunkering of ships, but also for the transportation of LNG in small amounts. Sovcomflot and Rosmorport will be the first clients. It is expected that Gazprom will be able to supply up to 110,000 tonnes of LNG a year to the Baltic States.

Fuel futures trading platform The first physical batch of diesel fuel has been supplied under a futures contract agreed on the St. Petersburg International Mercantile Exchange (SPIMEX). The lot of 30,000 tonnes was exported to the EU market by tanker in December.

The company says it expects to find more customers interested in small-scale LNG supplies in other areas, including in the Black Sea with its access to the Mediterranean, and in the Sea of Japan with further access to the Pacific transport routes. Both projects are awaiting investment approval.

In a press release, the trading platform stressed that the new contract is a mechanism for transparent market pricing, as well as a new channel of access to the market of Russian export diesel fuel for foreign buyers.

Gazpromneft opens Singapore lubes operation Gazpromneft Marine Lubricants has started supplying in the port of Singapore following the opening of an office there.

71

RUSSIAN NEWS

T

he new enterprise will provide an international production and logistics chain for Gazprom Neft marine oils, Southeast Asian and European markets

Stems were carried out using the company’s own barges at St. Petersburg’s main cruise terminal, Sea Facade, and at other berths on the city’s waterfront.

The company is aiming to capture 4% of the international marine lubricants market within a decade.

Lake Baikal bunker tanker A specialised bunker tanker has undergone trials on Lake Baikal in Eastern Siberia. The Georgy Moskalev was designed especially for the lake, which is the world’s deepest.

BTK’s cruise ship volumes rise Reporting its performance during last year’s summer season, from May to October, Baltic Fuel Company (BTK) said it supplied more than 50,000 tonnes of fuel, mainly HFO, to passenger ships at St. Petersburg.

This was an increase of 15% on the 2018 total.

According to PortNews, BTK supplied cruise lines including Viking Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line and Carnival.

As well as bunkering the ship is designed to carry out environmental protection, including collecting, treating and transporting oily and domestic waste water. It can also recover solid debris.

The 52 metre LOA, double bottomed and double sided ship has a crew of seven and a carrying capacity of about 280 tonnes.

Georgy Moskalev will carry out environmental patrols around Lake Baikal and also deliver bunkers as required.

The regional authorities are confident that the vessel will significantly improve environmental control and reduce the unauthorized discharge of contaminated water and debris.

Neftegaz Morservice joins Association The Russian Association of Marine and River Bunker Suppliers’ Council has granted membership to Neftegaz Morservice.

The company was established in April 2015 and operates in the ports of Kerch, Kavkaz, Temryuk, Novorossiysk, Sevastopol, Taman and Evpatoria. Its fleet consists of five vessels. Four are oil tankers providing bunkering operations both in ports and at anchorage. The fifth, the Sborschik-4, collects contaminated oil and hazardous waste and supplies fresh water.

iStock

©

72

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

EMISSION DATA CAPTURE PROJECT Baltic Exchange launches emissions monitoring and reporting initiative

T

he Baltic Exchange is setting up an independent data repository for the capture and storage of data related to maritime emissions in partnership with GeoSpock, University College London and University Maritime Advisory Services.

According to the Baltic, the Maritime Emissions Project aims to help maritime organisations and stakeholders address their emissions challenges in a transparent way, harnessing technology to facilitate emissions quantification, visualisation and reporting in a dynamic and flexible manner.

A spokesperson told World Bunkering: “As our market embraces digital technologies, the Baltic is in a unique position to facilitate the industry’s digital growth. To achieve this, it is imperative that we adopt and utilise the most advanced technology and develop the most holistic database available to our industry. The database that the Baltic Exchange is building with GeoSpock will act as a hub of information that can be constantly added to and improved on, but more importantly, interacted with. We believe it will set a global standard for a stronger data strategy in the shipping industry.”

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

They added: “Shipping currently generates huge quantities of data, whether it is onboard ships, in port, or through the wider logistics chain. Presently, this data is siloed, with no central pool that the industry can utilise. This new initiative aims to change that. In addition to data specific to shipping emissions such as fuel usage, voyage route and journey time, wider information on details such as location and weather will also be captured. These datasets will allow the industry to make more informed decisions when developing emissions initiatives.

Companies will be able to analyse and optimise shipping on a global scale, while providing regulators and governments with a new level of transparency.”

Hempel’s Head of Marine Group Product Management, Davide Ippolito, said: “The high level of fuel savings and hull protection are achieved due to the low average hull roughness (AHR) level delivered by the whole coating system, very low speed loss over the entire operational period and improved anti-corrosive capabilities.”

The new system builds on Hempel’s existing hull coating Hempaguard X7.

Since its launch in 2013, this coating has been applied to over 1,500 vessels allowing, the coating manufacturer claims, those owners to collectively reduce their annual bunker bill by US$ 500 million and reduce CO2 emissions by over 10 million tonnes.

New anti-fouling cuts speed loss Coatings manufacturer Hempel claims its new antifouling system, Hempaguard MaX. will deliver a guaranteed maximum speed loss of 1.2% over five years.

Hempel says the new system is applied in just three layers, meaning it can be applied more quickly, reducing time in dry dock by up to two days. It says that the combined savings generated by Hempaguard MaX through reduced time in dry dock and increased fuel savings could pay back the cost of the coating within three months.

Mark Jackson CEO The Baltic Exchange

73

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES

iStock

©

LUBRICANTS iStock

©

CHALLENGING CONDITIONS The IMO 0.50% sulphur limit has spurred a surge of activity among lubricant manufacturers

T

he main engine lubricant producers have been busy over the past couple of years developing lubricants that will perform effectively with fuels complying with the 0.50% maximum sulphur regulation.

The company says its lubricants are approved by leading marine equipment producers and are suitable for use on twoand four-stroke engines, operating on all types of fuel, including VLSFO and fuels with no more than 0.10% sulphur (ULSFO).

Total Lubmarine has developed a set of marine lubricants designed to work with a range of low sulphur fuels and has received a No Objection Letter (NOL) from major engine manufacturer MAN Energy Solutions, for the use of Talusia Universal (BN 57, SAE 50) on MAN B&W 2-stroke engines operating on fuels with no more than 0.50% sulphur, referred to as very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO).

Gazpromneft Marine Lubricants, Managing Director, Roman Miroshnichenko, commented: “Manufacturing in Singapore will help meet the growing demand for high-tech marine oils, and strengthen the company’s position in the Asia–Pacific market.

The company has also has also completed a successful 1,400-hour trial of Talusia Universal on a dual-fuel MAN B&W 7G50ME-GIE engine running continuously on gas with pilot fuel oil.

While getting a compatible lubricant is clearly important, Total Lubmarine’s Global Marketing Manager, Serge Dal Farra, said: “Along with the right cylinder oil selection, all ship operators are advised to ensure that they have implemented a continuous monitoring programme aboard their vessels.”

Gazpromneft Marine Lubricants has begun lubricant production in Singapore.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

Meanwhile additive supplier Lubrizol has issued a ‘whitepaper’ outlining research that it says underpins its advice that shipowners should use lubricants specifically formulated for these challenges. It warns that ‘legacy’ cylinder oils may not protect ship engines from the variable fuel characteristics of VLSFO. Lubrizol says that bench and engine tests revealed a high degree of variability in deposit formation and combustion characteristics among VLSFO blends, even using samples acquired from a relatively small geographical area. It adds that the widespread uptake of VLSFO could lead to increased incidence of engine deposits and costly damage if the lubricants selected by ship operators are not robust enough to maintain engine cleanliness.

Lubrizol’s says the findings appear to be supported by early reports of high sediment levels – exceeding the specifications in the ISO 8217:2017 marine fuel standard - in many test samples of VLSFO taken in Houston and Singapore. Fuels with high sediment levels can lead to an accumulation of sludge in fuel storage, handling and treatment systems, which could damage ship engines.

“It is clear that some features of VLSFOs introduce variability that will require lubricants with improved deposit handling performance,” says Harriet Brice, technology manager, marine diesel engine oils, Lubrizol. “Using a more robust lubricant will help to reduce the impact to the engine of this variability.”

Lubrizol argues that marine cylinder oils for low-sulphur fuels have not had to cope with this degree of deposit formation in the past and their additive packages may not be robust enough to handle the variable fuel characteristics of VLSFO. Lubrizol says it has developed an additive package, balancing traditional detergents with novel dispersants, that secures engine cleanliness even when faced with these challenges.

75

COMPANY NEWS

WE MAKE BUNKERING SIMPLE Bunker One continues to take bunkering one step further – by providing unparalleled service and offering guidance and advice that exceeds customer expectations

W

ith more than 140 bunkering experts in 22 locations worldwide, Bunker One has become a leading global physical supplier. Combining over four decades of experience with a customer-centric, specialised staff that goes the extra mile and focuses on keeping your vessels moving, we are the first to ask what we can do to help you succeed.

Can Do – Will Do Bunker One prides itself on global coverage with local expertise.

Our attitude is that we can provide your bunkering solution and that we will do exactly what we promise.

With more than 15.000 deliveries annually, Bunker One offers a range of solutions that exceed service, quality and safety expectations.

and we are committed to that. And this is not just a strategy. Recently we have proved this by investing in vertical integration in our supply chain.

And we are continuously investing in the growth of our company – hereby tripling the number of physical locations since Bunker One saw daylight two years ago.

A clear manifestation that Bunker One walk the talk.

What can we do for you?

Ask and let us prove we’re the answer you need – Anywhere.

Please contact Peter Zachariassen, Global Director, Bunker One at pza@bunkerone.com - or learn more at bunkerone.com

“We want to push boundaries, show integrity, challenge and improve the bunkering dynamics in our industry. ”

Peter Zachariassen, Global Director, Bunker One

2020 Ready and Beyond We’ve worked hard to ensure the support for our customers in the transition phase going into 2020.

Bunker One has an established physical supply platform and can offer VLSFO at all ports – making us 2020 compliant and beyond.

Working with the right partners and customers provides a constant focus on improving the quality in all aspects of the supply chain –

76

Peter Zachariassen

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

COMPANY NEWS

PROVIDING THE BEST SERVICES Big enough to be powerful, small enough to be agile

O

ur aim, at Bunkeroil, is to offer our clients a truly competitive advantage by providing the best services in terms of maritime transport, delivery & sale of oil products and the relationship between shipowners and port operations.

whilst our international expansion in the lubricant sector began in the second half of the 2000s. Today, we cover all of the world’s main ports as bunker and lubricant traders, of course with a greater focus on the Mediterranean Sea.

We offer bespoke solutions with a high added value when it comes to operational flexibility and financial conditions.

In 2018 we launched a constantly stocked lubricants storage service as leading ExxonMobil Distributors for local market in the territories of Italy and Malta.

With years of experience in the industry, we have developed a well-established network that enables us to respond to client requests promptly. We offer our clients: •

Since the company was founded in Livorno in 1980, our history has always been marked by constant growth and focus on the quality of our products and services, as well as on client satisfaction.

This has made us one of the key players in bunker and marine lubricants sale, both nationally and in the Mediterranean.

From the port of Livorno, our marine fuel and lubricant distribution operation began to expand into all Italian ports, in order to meet the diverse needs of our clients in an increasingly comprehensive way.

The cornerstones of our work.

Being a supplier is not enough, and that is why we strive to form partnerships with our clients, through: • • • •

the best products in terms of quality; maximum operational flexibility; problem solving; bespoke financial solutions.

• •

availability of the product or equivalent alternatives; 24/7 service; the most competitive price on the market, thanks to our greater purchasing power.

BUNKEROIL CONTACTS: Address: Via Pietro Paleocapa 11, 57123, Livorno, ITALY. Phone: + 39 0586 219214 Bunker enquiries: bunker@bunkeroil.it Lubricant enquires: lubricant@bunkeroil.it Please visit: www.bunkeroil.it Follow us on Linkedin: Bunkeroil

From the outset, our shipping activity in the transportation of petroleum products in the Mediterranean has run alongside the Bunker service, and in the early 2000s we upgraded our fleet.

During the same period, we launched the Clearing and Shipping Agency service in the port of Livorno, World Bunkering SPRING 2020

77

COMPANY NEWS

THE PENINSULA PETROLEUM GROUP The Peninsula Petroleum Group (PPG) commenced trading in 1996 when owner and CEO John A. Bassadone identified an opportunity to offer bunker supplies in Gibraltar

P

eninsula is now the leading global integrated marine fuel supplier and reseller operating from 18 global offices.

With physical supply operations in 15 worldwide ports and global reselling coverage, Peninsula is a diversified group, covering the supply chain from cargo sourcing through to ownership and operation of a modern product tanker fleet.

Peninsula is the most trusted brand in bunkering.

Operating from regional hubs in Houston, London, Gibraltar and Singapore Peninsula is enabled by a dynamic global team of 350 employees.

Our commercial teams span the globe from Europe to Americas to Asia.

Our presence in every major shipping and bunkering hub gives our customers and suppliers the confidence to trust Peninsula as an integrated solution for the supply of marine fuels. We are truly able to offer global knowledge with local insight.

Peninsula is the largest physical supplier in our main ports providing the most comprehensive regional bunkering solutions, including IMO 2020 compliant fuels.

What sets us apart Our physical supply base, global reselling capabilities (with well-vetted and reliable suppliers), technical expertise, fleet management, yachting services & lubricants enables us to supply the future of bunkers today.

As the world’s leading independent bunker supplier and reseller operating from an integrated platform, Peninsula’s physical supply chain features comprehensive cargo sourcing, strategically located storage and dedicated logistics; including post-fixture operational support.

78

Barge to vessel bunkering close up

Peninsula’s reselling activity boasts an international blue-chip client base and an industry leading supplier portfolio, whilst its risk management expertise offers clients and suppliers a range of hedging products to mitigate price risk.

PPG’s own low risk ethos and conservative growth strategy sets it apart. For professional stakeholders Peninsula’s ‘best in class’ reputation has been earned through tight credit control, impressive liquidity and strategically astute leadership. Indeed, we operate the most comprehensive and sophisticated credit risk management framework in the bunkering industry.

The company now operates around 36 vessels worldwide, of which 10 are owned and the rest chartered-in.

It also owns a Panamax tanker and has commenced a new-build vessel programme.

PPG’s direct relationships with oil majors, large IOCs, refiners and large global commodity traders on the supply side have helped enable the implementation of a diverse 2020 procurement offering which has provided clarity to customers on product availability in each of its physical locations.

The business has secured the right mix of compliant fuels matching the demand of its blue-chip customer base enabling PPG to be fully prepared for 2020 and beyond.

Long-term, we have a strong commitment to reducing shipping emissions and providing cleaner air in line with the IMO roadmap.

Peninsula is doing now what shipping needs next…

This platform provides us genuine global coverage for our blue-chip client base. If they need fuel anywhere in the world, we can source and supply at competitive prices.

Our IMO 2020 commitment PPG is extremely well placed in financial and operational terms to manage the volatility and uncertainty that the IMO 2020 legislation introduced from 1 January 2020.

John A. Bassadone

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

PAGE TITLENEWS COMPANY

GPS BUNKERS

GPS Bunkers is a physical bunker supplier in Fujairah, Khorfakkan and Kalba. GPS is the only supplier with control on the full value chain including product, tanks, storage terminals, and owned barges

G

• Owned Infrastructure – Oil Storage Terminal and bunker barges

Why GPS Bunkers ?

• Supplying IMO 2020 compliant Marine Fuel • In 2019 alone, GPS handled more than 2.2 million tonnes Marine Fuel

Gps Bunkers LLC also caters to the requirements of bunkers on worldwide ports through its trading activities, which ensure timely and accurate supplies through our association with our reliable and credible suppliers who give an edge to have an in-depth knowledge of the market. Our reach out to Far-east ports like Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and other global ports as well, provides us a spectrum to have an overview of the global bunker market.We hold a strong footprint in Indian and Sri Lankan ports, due to our collaboration with Indian refiners, Suppliers and barge Operators.

PS Bunkers serves some of the world’s biggest ship owners / charterers and prominent names of shipping industry. Operating our owned fleet of bunker barges includes FNSA 10 (5,200 MT LSFO & 1,000 MT LSGO); FNSA 11 (6,000 MT LSFO & 200 MT LSGO) and FNSA 12 which will be of equivalent quantity and is in a process to commence operations. We have our own inhouse technical and ship management division to manage bunkers barges, yachts and pilot boats.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

This gives us an edge to have a full view and control over the entire value chain to arrange smooth and on-time supplies.

Contact Details: Email: marketing@gpsbunkers.com Phone No.: +971 922 35249 Website: www.gpsbunkers.com

79

COMPANY NEWS

WAR ON WASTE Since 1993, EMEPCO has risen to the challenge of efficient disposal of oily water and slops

E

mirates Marine Environment Protection Company (EMEPCO) was established in 1993 with the aim of providing proper and efficient methods for the disposal of slops, oily water and waste oil to the various sections of the oil industry, particularly those involved in sea transportation.

EMEPCO’s strategic location in Fujairah, one of the world’s major oil tanker destinations, gives the marine industry an opportunity to deliver slops generated from the crude oil washing and tank washing of product tankers,

etc, to a 24-hour reception facility.

This enables the vessels to comply with the zero oily water discharge restriction in the Gulfs Area, which is listed as a Marpol special area.

With a long-term agreement with the government of Fujairah, EMEPCO is today one of the prime companies providing slop reception facilities in the Port of Fujairah, Khorfakkan and various other ports in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as stipulated in Marpol 73/78 Regulation 38 /Chapter 6/Annex 1. This was in response to the increasing demand for environmentally safe tank cleaning and disposal of oily water from product tankers in the anchorage of Fujairah, located on the east coast of the UAE.

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.

The main advantages the Port of Ceuta offers are the following ones: • One of the top ports in the Strait for Bunkering services.

• Tax Free bunkering and Zero Duty on goods passing through the port suppose a financial advantage.

• Quick turnaround due to efficiency of calls.

• Compliance with the Spanish Ports Cronos project for rapid response and prevention of accidental pollution of the port.

The competitive advantage that the Port of Ceuta offers, with respect to its competitors, is the quality service that can be found throughout the facilities in all areas such as:

80

infrastructure, machinery, and labour force. The Port´s target is to attract and meet the needs of the medium tanker that use intermediate fuels. This unique specialization in the servicing and supplying of all kind of moored boats has no rivals in the Strait of Gibraltar and the Port is considered to be the least congested in the Strait.

Liquid bulk traffic which includes the loading and unloading of fuel and the supply of ships represents over half of the traffic of our port. We have most of the port infrastructure exclusively designated for this side of business.

Therefore, we can confidently say that this is our specialization. We are an indispensable reference point in the Spanish port system for this type of traffic.

Furthermore, it is important to underline that the Port of Ceuta is working with the fuel oil 0.5% low in sulphur VLSFO (Very Low Sulphur Fuel oil) in our facilities.

The new berthing infrastructure built some months ago by the Port Authority of Ceuta made the aforementioned unloading a great success; since it allowed to receive a ship of great draft and length allowing the port of Ceuta to be more competitive by increasing its capacity for this type of operations that was previously limited to smaller vessels.

To conclude, the port of Ceuta has been expanding its product offer with the new VLSFO (Very Low Sulphur Fuel oil) marine fuel which is another step in the strategy of the port of Ceuta to boost its positioning as a reference of fuel supply services to ships in the Strait, as it is a key geographic-logistic core for international navigation routes.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

COMPANY PAGE TITLENEWS

AKRON TRADE AND TRANSPORT Quality on time, every time

E

stablished in 1997, AKRON Trade and Transport is a fully-integrated bunkering company that holds itself responsible and accountable for every step of product development from refinery to our consumers. The products we deliver to our clients are tested, traceable and reliable. Thanks to our geographical location off the east coast of the Middle East and our in-depth local knowledge we have secured strong relationships with oil majors, independent oil companies and refineries to ensure consistency.

To achieve highest quality assurance, the company handles fuels right from the refinery to the point of delivery on board its ships, effectively controlling product movements and testing procedures to ensure accurate and reliable fuel specifications at all times.

The Company’s Main Activities consist of:

Oil Trading In addition to its physical supply operations, the company engages in substantial “whole-sale” oil trading activities, of marine fuels to its customers in the East African countries, islandstates of the Indian Ocean, local (UAE) government authorities, traders and specialized refineries).

Bunker Supplies Local and high seas bunker supplies.

Over a period of time, Akron has created and established a sizeable market share in the bunker sector, selling and physically supplying marine fuel oil of all grades to all vessel types off the East coast of the UAE as well as to the international fishing fleets in the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal. As a physical supplier, the company purchases marine fuel from reputable suppliers on the spot market or under renewable contracts from petroleum trading subsidiary of National Gulf State Oil Companies.

“We continually strive to become more effective and competitive within this market, which is paramount in these uncertain times so that we can provide our customers with the best bunkering services.”

Vessel Chartering AKRON’s managed vessels are available for charter to third parties on spot/voyage, or on short/medium time-charter basis, thus maximizing fleet utilization rates.

Our Team AKRON has nurtured a management team that brings exceptional experience and expertise from the shipping and oil industries, particularly in tanker management and bunkering operations in the Gulf. With a strong, dedicated support team on the ground we put our experience, expertise and knowledge at your service 24 hours a day.

Our Fleet Our Offshore Bunkering operations utilize a storage mother vessel and a dedicated fleet of delivery tankers, all of which are internationally-certified and fully equipped to meet all STS requirements.

With over 150,000 metric tons of floating storage within the Arabian Gulf alone and a fleet of 27 vessels expanding year on year we have achieved an excellent longstanding relationships with our reputed charterers and with a continuous, reliable source of quality product, our customers are always ensured of prompt and efficient delivery of bunkers.

Safety & Quality Since our inception, there has been NO quality or quantity dispute, a record we are dedicated to maintain and an opportunity for us to show our customers their true value by providing optimum bunkers at the quickest turn-around time. Akron’s quality assurance program effectively controls product movement and testing to ensure accurate and dependable fuel specifications at all times.

Akron possess a Zero pollution and Spill incident with a clean safety and environmental record.

Akron Trade and Transport has all it takes to become and remain your reliable partner!!

AKRON TRADE AND TRANSPORT P.O.Box 1327, Fujairah United Arab Emirates.

Tel: + 971 9 2228840 Fax: + 971 9 2228841

Ship Management The company uses Group-management vessels to transport, store and deliver marine fuel products. Fully equipped to meet all Ship-to-Ship transfer requirements, as well as specially fitted for offshore bunkering and maintain high safety standards by complying with International and UAE regulations.

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

81

COMPANY NEWS

ORGANIZACIĂ“N TERPEL ORGANIZACIĂ“N TERPEL is a company that sells Fuel in Colombia for automobiles, aircraft and vessels

I

t also produces lubricants with international operations in Panama, Ecuador, Peru and the Dominican Republic in the aviation market.

In Colombia, we are market leaders in liquid fuels and natural gas retail.

We also have the largest chain of gas stations and network across the whole nation.

We have a highly qualified team that makes our operations fast and safe for every customer.

The team of Terpel gathers 3,000 partners in five different countries: Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Panama and Dominican Republic who commit every day to hard work and service, to keep industry and transportation moving.

Our team is highly qualified and specialized in making our operations reliable, fast and secure for each of our customers.

We offer Marine Gas Oil and marine lubricants with the best quality and the best prices, in the principal terminals in Colombia and in Panama.

Our team is constantly innovating our products to offer the best quality and price for you at all time. Therefore, we offer proposals that provide value to our customers at each service station, airport and maritime ports.

We are proud to have earned the trust of our customers by offering quality products as well as constant innovation at the best price for you.

Our bunker business is located in Colombia and Panama where we deliver by barge, truck and pipeline.

We provide marine diesel for passenger ships, fishing vessels, tuna seiners, dredges, general cargo ships, tugboats, and logistics support vessels on the high sea.

If you need us, please contact us at bunkers@terpel.com and check our web page www.terpel.com AT YOUR SERVICE! Come with us as we continue to fulfill our dreams

Advertising THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE OF IBIA

FULL PAGE

HALF PAGE HORIZONTAL DOUBLE PAGE SPREAD

EDITORIAL SYNOPSIS All prices subject to VAT at standard rate COPY REQUIREMENTS Adverts required as high resolution PDF E-mail to ibia@constructivemedia.co.uk ANYTHING SUPPLIED OTHER THAN THE ABOVE MAY INCUR A PRODUCTION CHARGE PRODUCTION SERVICE Our production department can offer you a full service in the preparation of your advertisement at very competitive prices.

Telephone: +44 (0) 1495 740050

82

HALF PAGE VERT.

QUARTER PAGE

THIRD OF A PAGE

New advertisement opportunities and discounts for IBIA members! please contact Alex Corboude for details - alex@worldbunkering.net

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

NEW MEMBERS

CORPORATE Trader, Storage Kenneth Dam Trafigura PTE Limited Europe Trader Danielle Van den Berg Aramco Trading Fujairah Middle East Ship Owner, Charterer Alessio Schiano Nova Marine Carriers Uk Ltd. Europe Supplier, Ship Owner Hong Yao Pai Sentek Marine & Trading Pte Ltd Asia

Service Gowri Shanker Velusamy Tribocare Pte Ltd Asia Supplier Praveen Jaiswal Axiom Global Oil & Gas Trading DMCC Middle East Supplier Amr Kataya Landmark Marine Africa Supplier Kirk King Sol Caribbean Limited Americas

Supplier Alexander Schaltuper Stonewin Capital LP Europe Trader Mohammad Ali Fathinejad International Marine & Energy DMCC Middle East Supplier Gratsiella Kladis Aegean Oil S.A. Bunker Trader Triantafilos Tzanetis FT Maritime Services Ltd Europe

INDIVIDUAL Bunker Supplier Robert Harper EuroEco Fuels Europe Service Eliseo Curcio Refinery Automation Institute Llc America Surveyor, Service Chien-Chin Chuang Thermo Fisher Scientific Pte. Ltd. Asia

Trader, Broker Divesh Popli Syenergy Petrochem LLC Middle East Legal Ted Graham Sea Green Law Europe Broker Zoe Rossi Bulugo Europe Trader Sofian Sarhan Finera Trading DMCC Middle East

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

Surveyor Jorden Durham Drumo Coin S.A.

CORPORATE ADDITIONAL Ship Owner, Charterer Bas van Steijnen Nova Marine Carriers Uk Ltd. Europe Service Sreenivasa Rao Gunda Tribocare Pte Ltd Middle East

83

DIARY 10 – 12 MARCH 2020

IBIA & S&P GLOBAL PLATTS MIDDLE EAST BUNKER FUEL CONFERENCE DUBAI, FUJAIRAH MIDDLE EAST

IBIA and S&P Global Platts are pleased to announce the new Middle East Bunker Fuel Summit 2020, a must attend event for industry participants in the region.

Coming at a time of significant change in the industry, this event builds on our shared bunker portfolio success.

This timely S&P Global Platts and IBIA conference will provide insight on the early impact of the sulphur cap, analysis of current bunker market dynamics, supply chain challenges, through freight and across commodities, the latest information on bunker quality and regulatory restrictions, updates on fuel supply and demand fundamentals and credit markets, assessment of the opportunities and challenges in shipping and fuel industries.

23 – 27 MARCH 2019 MARITIME WEEK AFRICA CAIRO, EGYPT

The week comprises the two-day Maritime Week Africa Conference, which focuses on African oil, shipping and bunker markets and a one-day Marine Fuels Analysis Course. Both are designed to bring together suppliers and buyers from markets in Africa.

For more information: https://www.petrospot.com/ events/cat/3

For more information: https://www.spglobal.com/ platts/en/events/emea/middle-east-bunker-fuel/ summary

22 – 24 APRIL

THE INTERNATIONAL BUNKER CONFERENCE OSLO, NORWAY

17 – 20 MARCH 2020

IBC 2020 will summarize 2020, provide market overviews and solutions in the new regulatory regime. and ask whether the real storm is brewing on the horizon. Don’t miss the chance to obtain an update on what’s happening in the bunker industry.

The third European Shipping Week will feature an array of events with high-profile keynote speakers from the world of shipping and the European institutions.

For more information: http://www.bunkerconference.com/

EUROPEAN SHIPPING WEEK BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

For more information: https://europeanshippingweek.eu/

17 MARCH 2020

18 – 24 APRIL

MARINE ENERGY TRANSITION FORUM ANTWERP, BELGIUM

SINGAPORE MARITIME WEEK SINGAPORE, ASIA

The Marine Energy Transition Forum 2020 will be moving beyond the decarbonisation challenge to focus on how established and new industry players are collaborating to deliver commercially viable and scalable solutions, with the support of research organisations, port authorities as well as political institutions.

Singapore Maritime Week (SMW) is the leading maritime event in Singapore driven by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. SMW gathers the international maritime community in Singapore for a week of conferences, dialogues, exhibitions and social events in celebration of all things maritime.

These events reflect the vibrancy and diversity of Singapore as a major international maritime centre.

For more information: https://www.petrospot.com/ events/metf20-antwerp

For more information: https://www.smw.sg/

84

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

23 APRIL

1 – 5 JUNE 2020

The IBIA Asia Annual Dinner is part of the Singapore Maritime Week social programme. It is a highly successful event which attracts about 200 participants, not only from Singapore but also from regional countries involved in the maritime bunkering industry. The IBIA Asia Annual Dinner has become an annual social event where the industry looks forward to a night of toasts, good cheer and gourmet delights, yearly.

Posidonia Exhibitions is a leading organiser of trade fairs in Greece, and operates through its headquarters located in Piraeus, Greece. Posidonia, the international shipping exhibition, has long been established as one of the major calendar events of the shipping industry, and Posidonia 2018 attracted the most influential personalities from the Greek and international shipping community and major companies and organisations active in all sectors of the shipping industry. The international exhibition Posidonia first took place in 1969 and has been taking place every two years ever since.

IBIA ASIA ANNUAL DINNER 2020 SINGAPORE, ASIA

For more information: https://ibia.net/event/ ibia-asia-annual-dinner-2020/

POSIDONIA ATHENS, GREECE

For more information: https://posidonia-events.com/

22 – 24 APRIL

ARGUS PANAMA BUNKER FUELS CONFERENCE PANAMA CITY, PANAMA

The Argus Panama Bunker Fuels Conference is a 3-day event packed with first-class networking and high-quality speakers; giving you the latest insights and developments not only on IMO 2020, but also where HSFO is going. Hear first-hand how markets have reacted since implementation, listen to experts discuss how flag states are enforcing regulation, where compliant fuel is available, and obtain valuable decision-making insights on pricing and trade flow data.

For more information: https://www.argusmedia. com/en/conferences-events-listing/ panama-bunker-fuels

18 – 22 MAY 2020 MARITIME WEEK AMERICAS PANAMA CITY, PANAMA

Maritime Week Americas 2020 returns to Panama with a week of key maritime events, including the MWA Conference plus top-level training. With over 200 delegates expected from over 30 counties, MWA remains the largest and most popular bunkering conference in the Americas.

For more information: https://www.petrospot.com/ events/mwa2020-panama

World Bunkering SPRING 2020

29 JUNE – 2 JULY 2020 MARITIME WEEK LAS PALMAS LAS PALMAS, SPAIN

The Port of Las Palmas and its key Government and Industry stakeholders have joined forces with Petrospot to create the inaugural Maritime Week Las Palmas – Supplying Ships in the Atlantic, a major new biennial event designed to showcase and promote this dynamic logistics hub and the wide range of maritime services provided by Las Palmas to ships sailing to and from Africa, Europe and the Americas.

For more information: https://www.petrospot.com/ events/mwlp-2020

30 SEPTEMBER – 2 OCTOBER ASIA PACIFIC MARITIME (APM)

Singapore, AsiaAsia Pacific Maritime (APM) is a premier exhibition and conference in Asia showcasing a complete overview of the vessel sectors – services and solutions, technology, vessels equipment, machineries, supplies, and many more. With 15 editions of proven track record, APM gives you 3 days of opportunities to connect with decision makers and to sharpen industry understanding in Asia.

85

WORLD BUNKERING

SUMMER 2020... NOW OPEN FOR BOOKINGS

SUMMER 2020 SPECIAL FEATURES: Scrubbers

As the end of 2019 approached, ship operators who had fitted scrubbers faced many uncertainties. Would there be enough HSFO available when the majority of the world fleet had switched to compliant fuels? And what would it cost? In addition, several major ports had banned the discharge of washwater from scrubbers within their waters. What effect would that have? Now, a few months into the new regulatory regime we take a look at how all these factors have played out.

Fuel Management

We look at how the industry has coped with the practical issues of complying with the 0.50% sulphur limit. Have the fears about contamination and engine shutdowns been borne out in practice?

GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS: Eastern Mediterranean

How has Greek shipping community responded to the 0.50% sulphur?

We find out. And we look at developments around this important region.

Indian Subcontinent

Our annual survey of the marine fuel industries in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

What’s new? What are the prospects for developing the region’s bunker markets?

Regular Features

News, Views, Analysis Russian Update Interview, Industry News, Environment, Testing, LNG, Lubricants, Innovation, Legal News, Equipment and Services, Diary Event Previews & Reviews

WWW.WORLDBUNKERING.NET 86

ibia@constructivemedia.co.uk World Bunkering SPRING 2020