07 20 TE NE A JU UPD
M
aritime air emissions and
MARPOL Annex VI
Strategies and consequences
© IPIECA 2007. Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement. This publication is printed on paper manufactured from fibre obtained from sustainably grown softwood forests and bleached without any damage to the environment. Photographs reproduced courtesy of the following: cover: ©2007 JupiterImages Corporation; pages1, 4 and12: ©Shutterstock.com; pages 2, 3 and10: ©iStockphoto.com
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Contents Introduction
2
Maritime emissions legislation: current and proposed
3
The MARPOL Annex VI revision process and other legislative initiatives
4
Proposed abatement strategies and their consequences
6
Emissions trading
10
Interpreted positions of a selection of stakeholders
11
Annex VI: conclusions and way forward
12
Contact directory: oil and fuel industry associations
13
1
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Introduction As expressed in MARPOL Annex VI, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
aspects of emissions from shipping activities,
develops and promulgates international
such as current and proposed legislation, types
regulation on air emissions from shipping.
and sources of emissions, as well as abatement
Existing and proposed regulatory measures to
strategies and their consequences, and
reduce air emissions from shipping activities
stakeholders and their respective views.
tend to focus on the use of heavy fuel oil for
A separate process at the IMO is addressing
ships (‘bunkers’), which have formed the basis
the reduction of CO2 emissions from ships. The
of marine fuel supplies for many decades. Any
IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee
changes in legislation on bunker quality will
(MEPC) discussed this issue at its fifty-third
directly impact on shipping companies and
session (July 2005). An approved set of the
fuel suppliers, as well as others in the fuel
Interim Guidelines for Voluntary Ship CO2
supply chain and in the transport of goods by
Emission Indexing for Use in Trials has been
sea. Knock-on effects may also affect land-
issued as a circular by the MEPC.
based stakeholders.
2
This document will discuss the various
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Maritime emissions legislation: current and proposed MARPOL 93/97 Annex VI was ratified in 2004, and entered into force on 19 May 2005. Regulation 13 of Annex VI applies to emissions of nitrogen oxides, and Regulation 14 applies to sulphur oxides. The latter establishes a global fuel oil sulphur ‘cap’ (i.e. the amount of sulphur permitted in fuel for use in shipping) of 4.5 per cent m/m and the creation of designated SOX Emission Control Areas (SECAs) in which the corresponding limit in fuel oil is 1.5 per cent m/m. Currently only two areas—the Baltic Sea and the North Sea/English Channel—are designated as SECAs. The Baltic Sea became a SECA on 19 May 2006, and the North Sea/English Channel will become one on 22 November 2007. Regulation 15 applies to the emission of volatile organic compounds and Regulation 18 addresses fuel oil quality, particularly record keeping, fuel sampling and the issue of Bunker Delivery Notes (BDNs).
3
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
MARPOL Annex VI revision process and other legislative initiatives If recommendations are agreed by the
The sustained reduction in emissions from landbased sources has focused attention on the
member states, new, globally-enforceable
relative contribution from shipping when near
regulations could be introduced as early as 2010. Meanwhile, on a similar (but not identical)
coastal areas and in ports. The IMO MEPC decided in July 2005 to evaluate whether a
timescale, the European Union is likely to revise
revision to Annex VI was required, and the
the European Sulphur in Liquid Fuels Directive.
technical committee assigned by IMO to deal with
This review is expected to commence in 2008.
this issue—the ‘Bulk Liquids and Gases
Some countries and ports are also considering
Subcommittee’ (BLG)—is in turn discussing the
the introduction of port-specific measures to
need for revisions to MARPOL Annex VI with its
reduce air pollution, for example Los Angeles,
member states. BLG is tasked with evaluating
Tokyo Bay, Hong Kong and Seoul. These
whether a revision to MARPOL Annex VI is
initiatives have prompted a discussion on the
required, and if so, to propose changes. This
extent to which countries, provinces, cities and
process is currently in progress and advice on
ports can legislate on and control fuel quality
revision will be considered by MEPC in July 2007
and emission performance of vessels within their
and in March/April 2008.
sea areas, in the context of international law. An overview of the timeline is given in Figure 1. The requirement of the revision process is to look at technological capabilities to arrive at practical, cost-effective solutions to demonstrated problems. The process will: ●
examine available and developing techniques for reduction of emission of air pollutants;
●
review the relevant technologies and potential for reduction of NOX, and recommend future limits of NOX emission;
●
review technology and the need for reduction of SOX, justify and recommend future limits of SOX emission;
4
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Figure 1: Legislative overview and timeline—IMO and European Union
19 May 2005 Entered into force Global sulphur limit 4.5% w/w Fuel sulphur level on BDN November 2007 North Sea SECA 1.5% 19 May 2006 Baltic Sea SECA 1.5%
2004
2005
14 April 2005 EU Parliament passes Sulphur Directive 1999/32/EC 22 July 2005 Publication of Sulphur Directive 2005/33/EC
●
●
Emissions trading
2006
2007
2008
11 August 2006 EU Member States laws enacted: • 1.5% in Baltic SECA • 1.5% for all ferries calling at EU ports • Use of abatement technology as an alternative to 1.5% fuel
2010
January 2010 0.1% sulphur limit on all marine fuel used while at berth in ports
11 August 2007 EU Member States enact 1.5% S in North Sea and Channel
review relevant technologies and the need
2009
●
EU Commission review on: • further restrictions on sulphur in marine fuels, possibly down to 0.5% • additional SECAs • alternative measures including proposals on economic instruments
consider whether MARPOL Annex VI
and potential for reduction of VOC, and
emission reductions or limitations should be
recommend future control of VOC emission;
expanded to include diesel engines that use
with a view to controlling emissions of
alternative fuels and engine systems/power
particulate matter (PM), study current
plants other than diesel engines; and
emission levels of PM from marine engines,
●
Adapted from Robin Meech
MARPOL Annex VI ratification
2007–2008 Review MARPOL Annex VI
review the texts of MARPOL Annex VI, the
including their size distribution and quantity,
NOX Technical Code and related guidelines
and recommend actions to be taken for the
and recommend necessary amendments.
reduction of PM from ships; and, because the reduction of NOX and SOX emission is expected to also reduce PM emission, estimate the level of PM emission reduction through this route; ●
consider reducing NOX and PM limits for existing engines; 5
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Proposed emission abatement strategies and their consequences The following section outlines the strategy options that are currently being considered by IMO and its technical committees for the various pollutant classes outlined in this document.
Sulphur oxides Several SOX abatement proposals have been developed, and they have been grouped into three strategic options for further consideration by IMO. They are: ●
Baseline reference: No change to current regulation MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14.
●
Option B: Reduction of the sulphur level in SECAs to 1 per cent in 2010 and 0.5 per cent in 2015; optionally a reduction of the global cap could also be added. Alternative proposals combining a geographic S limitation with a global S cap have been submitted by the USA and BIMCO (options B1 and B2).
●
Option C1: Mandated use of distillate fuels (e.g. diesel/marine gas oil, etc.) with a maximum sulphur content of 1 per cent as of 2012 and of 0.5 per cent as of 2015; as a variation to this option, heavy fuel oil use would still be allowed, provided the S limit is met, or equivalent emissions are achieved through other means (i.e. exhaust gas scrubbing). Table 1 compares the positive and negative effects of the options under consideration.
1
The distillate proposal requires: • Four million barrels per day (MBD) or 200 million tonnes annually (MTA), of marine distillate to replace marine bunker fuel. • Up to 4-5 MBD of incremental coking capacity and related processing. … and would lead to: • The need for construction of 80–100 additional world-scale (~ 50,000 barrels/day) coking projects, including associated refinery process units (i.e., hydrocrackers, hydrotreaters, hydrogen plants, reformers). • The scale of construction required would far exceed the capacity of the engineering and construction industry to complete this task even within a 10-year timescale. • A by-product stream of coke and sulphur to find alternative markets. The inability to use the heavy fuel oil stream as marine fuel oil could lead to its use in land based power stations and would bring it into competition with coal. • A change in market conditions, possibly leading to scarcities and an appreciable rise in the cost of diesel, heating, and aviation fuels. The impact of this would be most keenly felt in the developing world where embryonic industries rely on this type of fuel for electrical and industrial power. For shipping in areas near shore, this may result in increased land transport • Significant impacts on steam ships and ships with large steam plant for cargo handling will need to be addressed. The current marine boilers are not designed for in-service use of distillate fuels. Any fuel change over, without extensive modifications to fuel management and combustion systems including furnace combustion equipment, could result in conditions posing a serious safety threat to marine personnel.
6
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Table 1: Strategy options for sulphur oxides—comparison of positive and negative outcomes and uncertainties Baseline Reference: No change to MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14 Positive effects
Negative effects
Uncertainties
Improvement in air emissions brought about by the introduction of MARPOL Annex VI would continue. Contains mechanisms for demonstrating the need for additional SECAs or further reduction in S level based on scientific justification. Recognizes that SOX emissions are a regional issue. SOX emissions at sea are largely deposited into seawater with minimal environmental impact. Focuses on impact of SOX emissions on the land environment and on human health rather than gross levels of emissions over water.
Further improvements beyond the levels achieved by the original regulation would need to be achieved through the addition of new SECAs and regional restrictions
Scientific assessment of the environmental benefit resulting from existing SECAs is not yet available given their recent implementation. Therefore the effectiveness of these measures is not yet confirmed.
Option B: Reduction of S level in SECAs to 1% in 2010 and 0.5% in 2015 (includes option to reduce global cap) Positive effects
Negative effects
Uncertainties
A reduction in the sulphur limit in the two current SECAs (the Baltic and North Sea) would reduce the SOX emissions in these areas. A reduction in the global sulphur cap of marine fuel would further reduce the SOX emissions from ships on a worldwide basis.
From an environmental standpoint there are no foreseen additional negative environmental consequences. From a fuel supply point of view, a lower SECA S level will imply tighter constraints on the volume of low S bunker fuel that can be made available. In particular in the case of a 0.5% S limit, low S distillate fuel will need to be added in larger quantities to the fuel to meet the S specification.
The current SECA-related sulphur limits and global sulphur cap have only recently been introduced. Assessments of the benefits of these measures have not yet been completed and therefore the effectiveness of the measures is unconfirmed. It is therefore not yet possible to extrapolate what the benefits might be of any further reduction.
Options B1 and B2: Global/area-based standards as proposed by USA and BIMCO Positive effects
Negative effects
Uncertainties
Emission reductions in coastal zones, port areas and estuaries could be focused on where emissions reductions have most beneficial effects.
Similar to Option B but, to a larger extent, distillate fuel will likely need to be blended to make sufficient low S available.
Extent of the emission control zones is not well defined. Operating engines at very low S level for extended period of time may be problematic.
Option C1: Distillate proposal—mandated use of distillate fuels with max. S content of 1% as of 2012 and 0.5% as of 2015; and Option C2: same global caps as Option C, but allowing use of heavy fuel oil with alternative mechanisms to obtain equivalent emissions Positive effects
Negative effects
Uncertainties
SOX emissions from ships on a worldwide basis would be reduced to the level emitted by burning fuels of sulphur content of 1% m/m or below. The need for SECAs falls away as, in effect SECA emissions standards are introduced globally. Vessel fuel systems for motor ships would be simpler and the necessity to carry two grades of fuel and to change over fuels when entering SECAs would be removed, provided that no stricter regional/states regulation exists.
In switching to distillate fuels there would no longer be a marine outlet for heavy fuel oil streams in the refining process. Unless other markets (e.g. power industry) would be taking up these streams, they would have to be converted to other products through conversion of heavy fuel oil to lighter fractions or through use of a desulphurization process to lower the sulphur content of the fuel oil. Both Options C and C2 would require significant additional fuel processing in refineries, creating significant amounts of incremental CO2, seriously impacting national strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and requiring large capital investments. Each option raises concerns about supplies since each refiner will decide individually whether to make the costly investment for producing low-sulphur marine fuels.
The increased CO2 contribution as a result of processing the heavy fuel oil stream has not been quantified. The impact of intermodal transportation shifts and the environmental and socio-economic consequences of fuel oil competing with coal for land based electrical power generation are unknown. The magnitude of the impact to world economies, especially in the developing world, resulting from possible scarcities and cost increases of diesel fuel, have not been determined. Appears to ignore significant cost and global warming impacts vs. the air quality benefits.
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) The IMO is approaching the NOX abatement issue on a tiered basis, i.e.: ●
Reductions of NOX emissions provided by changes in marine engine technological advances (Tier II);
●
Further reductions in NOX emissions could be met by exhaust gas conversion units (EGCUs) to convert NOX into nitrogen before release to the atmosphere (Tier III: three different options under consideration).
(See Table 2, below.)
Table 2: IMO tiered approach to NOX abatement options for new engines—comparison of positive and negative effects Tier 1: current MARPOL Annex VI Positive effects
Negative effects
Uncertainties
Emission reduction versus unregulated emission, without fuel efficiency penalty.
Lower emissions possible with current state of technology.
Applicability to existing pre-2000 engines
Tier II: reduction of NOx emissions with 2 to 3.5 g/kWh as of 2011 Positive effects
Negative effects
Uncertainties
Reduction can be achieved with inengine design modifications.
Engine efficiency may be reduced resulting in increased fuel consumption.
The differences in NOX emission achieved when burning differing fuels in the same engine. A limited short duration shipboard trial has indicated there is no substantial difference in the NOX emissions when burning different fuel types. This conclusion has not been formally verified. The NOX reductions possible for steam ships and motor ships with large steam plant are uncertain.
Tier III: Advanced reduction options to become effective in 2015–16 time frame: • Option X: 80% reduction from Tier I levels within 50 nautical miles from shore • Option Y: 83-85% reduction from Tier I levels on large vessels only in specific near-shore areas • Option Z: 40-50% reduction from Tier I levels applicable to all marine diesel engines on a global basis
8
Positive effects
Negative effects
Uncertainties
Exhaust gas modification equipment has shown positive results in other industries and is being used on a number of ferries and smaller vessels.
Equipment may not be fully operational when engine operates at low speed during maneuvering. On-board safety issues handling urea/ammonia have not been fully addressed.
Environmental need for global reduction versus geographically limited reduction needs further evaluation. Equipment required has not been evaluated on large commercial vessels, and further evaluation is needed to assess its suitability. A disadvantage of adopting this strategy would be that it increases the complexity of marine power plants.
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Two abatement strategy options are being considered by IMO: ●
Vapour recovery at load and discharge ports to shore-based treatment facilities. This is accepted as desirable and signatory governments to IMO have been invited to instigate this control strategy via MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 15.
●
A requirement for an onboard VOC management plan to reduce VOC emissions during operations.
(See Table 3, below.)
Table 3: IMO VOC reduction options—comparison of positive and negative effects Vapour recovery at load and discharge ports, to shore-base treatment facilities Positive effects
Negative effects
Uncertainties
Recovery of VOCs at load and discharge ports would contribute to the most effective means of reducing VOC emissions. At load ports the volume of VOCs released is approx equal to the tank volume filled with cargo.
Investment likely not cost effective in facilities with low turnover.
The cost of fitting vapour recovery facilities at load ports. Local environmental needs may differ. Regulatory competence with Member State authorities.
Requirement for an onboard VOC management plan to reduce VOC emissions during operations Positive effects
Negative effects
Uncertainties
Practical on-board measures and guidance to ships’ staff on minimizing VOC emissions.
Difficult to quantify expected improvements.
Possible conflicts and safety concerns with existing cargo handling procedures and guidance.
Particulate matter Except for a proposal contained in the USA submittal to BLG 11, no primary strategy for PM abatement is currently being proposed at IMO. It is viewed that sulphur oxide emission abatement will address the SO X component of particulate emissions and that heavy non-aerosol particles such as soot will fall to earth in the vicinity of the emitter. Smaller particles less than 2.5 micron have decreasing impact as distance from the source increases. Further study is needed to evaluate health threat from marine PM emissions. The non-SOX particulate matter associated with fuel combustion will remain regardless of fuel sulphur content unless particulate interception is used. Current uncertainties The difference in particulate emission profiles between marine engines burning HFO and distillate fuels has not been well established. The PM size distribution as a function of fuel type used is not very well understood. Also, particulate matter chemistry of large marine engines has not been studied in detail. 9
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Emissions trading Where permitted, emissions trading is a tool that can be used between vessels to both meet environmental objectives and increase cost-effectiveness. Essentially, credits are traded between vessels that can meet or better the in-SECA requirement (e.g. through the use of scrubbing) and vessels that cannot. There is a tacit (and in some cases an explicit) acceptance of emissions trading in both the IMO and EU legislative processes. The Sulphur Emissions Abatement and Trading (SEAaT) group, set up between two major oil companies and several shipping companies, recently carried out a pilot exercise to explore the principles of offsetting of sulphur emissions within a SECA. The pilot used a control group of seven international shipping companies and 58 participating vessels to demonstrate that a data gathering scheme could operate in a SECA. The pilot demonstrated that the cost of compliance (i.e., achieving the prescribed environmental standard) through offsetting can be significantly reduced compared with compliance through all vessels burning low-sulphur fuel.
10
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Interpreted positions of a selection of stakeholders Table 4 compares and contrasts the interpreted position of key stakeholders—principally through analysis of their submissions to IMO. Table 4: Interpreted positions of a selection of stakeholders Norway
● ●
United States EPA
● ● ●
● ● ● ●
BIMCO
● ● ● ● ●
●
ICS
● ● ●
Intertanko
● ● ● ●
IPIECA
●
● ● ●
●
OCIMF
● ● ● ● ● ●
Proposes a global switch to distillate fuels only (0.5% mm sulphur) by 2015. Promotes the concept of VOC plans to reduce VOC emissions. Supports the development of stringent international fuel standards. Proposes emissions (SOX, NOX and PM) control areas for selected coasts around the world. Proposes a goal-based approach which would require either 0.1% sulphur distillate fuel or SOX scrubber abatement strategies implemented by 2011 in coastal waters. Asserts PM is a serious threat to public health. Proposes NOX reductions for both new and existing engines. Asserts marine vessels are a significant source of primary and secondary PM, SOX and NOX. Considers emissions from ships to be a great concern in deep water ports in the USA. Supports a differentiated multi-speed approach. Proposes distillate fuels in SECAs, port areas, estuaries and certain distances from shore. Supports using higher sulphur fuels when at sea. Proposes gradually reducing the global cap: 3% in 2012 and 1.5% in 2016. Proposes gradually reducing the sulphur content of distillates for SECAs etc. to 1.0% in 2011 and to 0.5% by 2015. Supports the use of alternatives to achieve equivalent emission reductions. Supports reductions of sulphur in fuel for SECAs to 1%. Recommends the global sulphur cap reduction proposal to be examined. Looks for a balanced global approach with shipping emissions reductions balanced against increased emission elsewhere. Proposes a ‘distillate only’ strategy to address reduction of sulphur in fuel. Proposes a global SECA concept with an eventual reduction in sulphur in fuel content to 0.5%. Proposes a defined fuel standard to be included in the revision of MARPOL Annex VI. Believes particulate matter emissions reductions will automatically be addressed by the switch over to distillate fuels. Supports the existing structure of MARPOL Annex VI which contains a global cap and SECAs with a 1.5% sulphur level for those areas that can justify need. Supports change with justification and based on realistic time frames. Predicts that conversion to distillates will significantly increase greenhouse gases (GHGs) from refineries. Supports performance-based standard that allows for on-ship controls or other means to achieve emissions reductions. Has doubts about the refining industry’s ability to be able to cope with a total switch to distillate fuel by the shipping industry in time-scales currently being proposed. Supports thorough and appropriate studies. Proposes definition and execution of appropriate study within three years. Supports change when need is justified. Recommends following the existing SECA process outlined in MARPOL Annex VI Appendix 3. Supports progress on NOX reduction strategies for new ships. Does not support NOX reduction measures being applied to existing engines.
11
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Annex VI: conclusions and way forward World shipping is already remarkably environmentally efficient, for example carrying 90 per cent of world trade but emitting only 10 per cent of the world’s transport-related greenhouse gas emissions. The petroleum industry supports the existing structure and emission control approach of MARPOL Annex VI which contains a global cap and SECAs with a 1.5 per cent sulphur level for those areas that can justify a need for additional reductions based on a scientific analysis and cost effectiveness. A radical restructuring of this process should not be undertaken at this time without scientific and economic justification. The existing SECA
requirements being based on those parameters
concept is performance-based: this allows for
that minimize emissions, rather than the method
the most cost-effective solution, whether based
of their manufacture.
on the fuel, the ship or a combination of the two. Prescription of specific technologies should be avoided, with quality specifications and
The Refining industry is willing to participate in a process at IMO—with other stakeholders (e.g. marine engine manufacturers)—to analyse the need and justification for a lower SECA sulphur limit and the impacts on supply and emissions, including lifecycle CO2 emissions, in order to determine if and when the level of sulphur should be reduced, or if other alternative emission controls are more appropriate. A first step in this process would be to assess the effectiveness of the two existing SECAs. The cross Government/Industry Scientific Group proposed by IMO's Secretary General Efthimios Mitropoulos at the BLG 11 meeting in April 2007 should be able to address these issues. The refining industry therefore supports this initiative and is ready to provide its contribution to this study effort.
12
Maritime air emissions and MARPOL Annex VI: Strategies and consequences
Contact directory: oil and fuel industry associations
American Petroleum Institute (API) 1220 L Street NW, Washington District of Columbia, DC 20005 United States of America Tel: +1 202 682 8000 Website: www.api.org
The Oil Companies Association for Clean Air and Water in Europe (CONCAWE) Boulevard du Souverain 165 B-1160 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 2 566 91 04 Fax: +32 2 566 9111 Website: www.concawe.org
Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI) 1000-275 Slater Ottawa, Ontario Canada, K1P 5H9 Tel: +1 613 232 3709 Fax: +1 613 236 4280 Website : www.cppi.ca
The International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) Ground Floor, Latimer House 5–7 Cumberland Place Southampton, Hampshire SO15 2BH United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)23 8022 6555 Fax: +44 (0)23 8022 1777 Website: www.ibia.net
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) 5th Floor, 209–215 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8NL, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7633 2388 Fax: +44 (0)20 7633 2389 Website: www.ipieca.org
Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) 27 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9BU United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7654 1200 Fax: +44 (0)20 7654 1205 Website: www.ocimf.com
European Petroleum Industry Association (EUROPIA) Boulevard du Souverain 165 B-1160 Brussels Tel: +32 2 566 9104 Fax: +32 2 566 9111 Website: www.europia.com
13
M
aritime against air emissions and
Oil Pollution MARPOL Annex VI Strategies and consequences
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) 5th Floor, 209–215 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NL, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7633 2388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7633 2389
Website: www.ipieca.org
Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) 27 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9BU, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7654 1200
Fax: +44 (0)20 7654 1205
Website: www.ocimf.com
Review of MARPOL Annex VI The eleventh session of the BLG Sub-Committee, in April 2007, identified 6 options as possible strategies to reduce Sox emissions, and an "Informal Group of Scientific Experts" was set up by the Secretary General to examine the implications of these various options on the environment, the shipping and refining industries, etc. BLG 12, in February 2008, was tasked with reviewing the report of the Scientific Group, reducing the list of options to the extent possible, and preparing draft text for submission to MEPC 57 at the beginning of April. These discussions had resulted in 3 options being left on the table, ranging from the controversial proposal that the world fleet should switch to the use of distillate fuels by 2012, to a regional solution involving a reduction in the global sulphur cap coupled with a reduction of the level in Sox Emissions Control Areas. There were also a number of submissions to this session proposing variations on the three identified options. It soon became clear that the majority of the Europeans were backing a proposal from Germany, Norway and Finland for a progressive reduction in sulphur levels within SECA's to 0.1% by 2015 and a global switch to distillate fuels by 2018. Denmark and Spain, together with many of the non-European states, supported a proposal from the UK which foresaw the same reduction to 0.1% within SECA's, but instead of a switch to distillates, reduction of the global cap to 1.5% by 2016. A fundamental difference between the two approaches was that the UK paper included the option to use abatement technology as an alternative method of achieving the levels prescribed, while Germany, Finland, Norway and the EC favoured the banning of the use of such equipment by 2015. It was made clear that a decision had to be made at this session in order to prevent unilateral imposition of restrictions on a reginal basis and after considerable discussion, therefore, the following compromise agreement was reached: 1 March 2010 – Sulphur cap in SECA's to be reduced to 1.0% 1 January 2012 – Global sulphur cap reduced to 3.50% 1 January 2015 – Sulphur cap within SE A's reduced to 0.10% 1 January 2020 – Global sulphur cap reduced to 0.50%
No mention made of mandatory use of distillates, meaning that the option is there to use alternative measures, including abatement technology, to reach the required levels. Regulation 4, dealing with Equivalents, makes it clear that the Administration may allow "any fitting, material appliance or apparatus to be fitted in a ship or other procedures, alternative fuel oils or compliance methods used as an alternative to that required by this Annex if such fitting, material, appliance or apparatus or other procedures, alternative fuel oils or compliance methods are at least as effective in terms of emissions reductions as that required by this Annex, including any of the standards set forth in regulations 13 and 14." The revised Annex includes a provision for a review to be carried out by 2018 into the availability of low sulphur fuel to meet the requirements by 2020. If this review concludes that there is not enough of such fuel available, then the date of enforcement of this requirement will be put back to 1 January 2025. In view of the problems some members have encountered in sourcing LSFO for the current SECA's, IPTA was instrumental in the development of a provision in relation to the non-availability of low sulphur fuel. This regulation provides for vessels that have been unable to take on board the appropriate fuel to be exempted from control measures, at the discretion of the Port State, in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that all possible efforts have been made to purchase the appropriate fuel.
Nox Technical Code This will be applied by means of 3 tiers specifying progressively reduced limits of emissions of nitrogen oxides, calculated as total weighted emissions at various engine speeds. The Tier 1 standard is that currently applicable to engines on ships built since 2000; Tier 2 will apply to ships built between 1 January 2011 and 1 January 2016; and Tier 3, the most stringent standard, will apply to ships built from 1 January2016. With regard to ships built before 2000, it was agreed that those built before 1 January 1990 will not be required to upgrade their engines. Engines with a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a per cylinder displacement at or above 90 litres on ships constructed between 1 January 1990 and 1 January 2000 will be obliged to meet the Tier 1 requirements with regard to Nox emissions by means of an approved kit that manufacturers are expected to develop. If, for whatever reason, an approved kit is not available for a particular engine, then it will not be required to comply.
The text of the revised Annex VI agreed at this session will be circulated and is expected to be formally adopted at MEPC 58 in October, which will lead to entry into force in March 2010. See Members' Area for the agreed draft text of the revised Annex.
MARPOL Annex VI - Fuel Quality RequirementsApril 2006 Earlier Steamship Mutual website articles have given details of the Air Pollution regulations brought into force under MARPOL Annex VI and of the INTERTANKO clauses prepared to assist owners and charterers to comply with the regulations and similar European regulations. Regulation 18 of Annex VI refers to the fuel oil quality supplied by Charterers. The requirements are more or less identical to the general fuel specification requirements of ISO 8217. Clarifications of the requirements of Regulation 18 are found in Resolution MEPC 96 (47) "Guidelines for the sampling of fuel for determination of compliance with Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78". It is expected that the guidelines will be used by Port State Control authorities as the standard for determining compliance. Useful guidance is also given INTERTANKO's "A Guide to Bunkering of Ships for the purposes of Annex VI to MARPOL" (The Guide can be obtained from the INTERTANKO online bookshop) The Bunker Delivery Note (BDN) must record any fuel oil delivered onboard for combustion purposes. A BDN shall be presented for every barge delivery and every grade of fuel. The Sulphur content (%m/m) must be specified. A declaration should be signed and certified by the fuel suppliers' representative, to the effect that the fuel is in conformity with Regulations 14 and 18. Resolution MEPC 96 (47) recommends that the seal number of the associated MARPOL Annex VI fuel sample is included in the BDN for cross reference purposes and that the volume of the sample bottle should be no less than 400 ml, due to a potential need for repetitive testing, INTERTANKO recommends that the sample volume is not to be less than 750ml. It should be noted by Charterers that the practical purpose of this sample, is to enable port states to verify the sulphur content of the fuel, as well as to verify that the fuel oil quality is in accordance with Regulation 18. The Annex VI fuel sample is not primarily to be used for commercial purposes. Vessels participating in a fuel oil quality testing scheme, e.g. DNV Petroleum Services, the Annex VI sample should be considered as the 4th sample (in addition to the sample sent to the laboratory for testing, the suppliers sample, and the retained onboard sample). Keeping an Annex VI sample onboard in case of Port State Control inspections is good practice.
To satisfy Regulation 18 the Annex VI fuel oil sample should be taken by continuous drip and at the receiving ship's bunker manifold. Analysis of the onboard Annex VI sample would normally be carried if an incident occurred with the vessel following bunkering which could possibly be related to the bunker quality. Class Surveyors, Port State Control inspectors and the agents of other interested parties will scrutinise onboard documentation and records (e.g. sampling procedures, fuel change-over procedures, Engine Log Books, BDN's etc) as well as the fuel oil sample inventory. It should be noted that the limitations in sulphur content applies to all fuel oils (heavy fuel oils, marine diesel oils and marine gas oils) and regardless of their use onboard i.e. in combustion engines, boilers, gas turbines etc. Currently the average sulphur content in Heavy Fuel Oils (HFO) is in the region of 2.7%. General indications from fuel testing data shows that only 0.2% of the fuel tested had a sulphur content exceeding the required 4.5%. However, tests also indicate that only 4% of the fuel oils supplied today have a sulphur content of 1.5% or less. It has been estimated that demand for the low sulphur fuel oil in the SOx Emmission Control Area's (SECAs - see below) will be in the region of 14-20 million tons per year, of which approximately only 0.7 million tons per year is available in North Western Europe today. It is generally acknowledged that the requirements of the Annex VI will lead to increased prices for low sulphur fuels. It is uncertain at this stage whether low sulphur (1.5%) supply will be sufficient to meet demand. Low sulphur fuels are, in general, only available to suppliers with contract agreements with Oil Majors. Future spot availability is thus dependent on the market demand and price after entry into force of the Baltic Sea SECA in May 2006 and the North Sea and English Channel SECA in August -November 2007 (see below). Low sulphur fuels may lead to additional quality problems such as instability, incompatibility, ignition and combustion difficulties and an increase in catalytic fines. When a vessel is approaching a SECA, the fuel must be changed over to the 1.5% sulphur content fuel oils, with all original fuel being used/consumed, before the vessel actually enters the area. For ships with standard fuel oil systems consisting of one settling tank and one service tank, this will involve the filling of settling tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, adequate purification and subsequent filling of the service tank, as well as the flushing of all fuel service piping systems of high sulphur fuel, before entry into the area.
In order to simplify the operational processes, some Owners are already planning to install an additional set of fuel oil settling and service tanks for onboard separation of the dual fuel requirements and to simplify onboard fuel management. There is also an issue of whether to allocate or convert existing fuel oil tanks to tanks for the storage of marine gas oil. In any event, the conversion of additional and separate storage tanks to accommodate the low sulphur fuel, or the increased use of marine gas oil, will result in an escalation in fuel operating costs onboard. There is increasing pressure on Charterers to utilise "modern" tonnage in order to comply not only with the SOx requirements but also the other Annex VI requirement in respect of low NOx emissions. Vessels with older machinery may find difficulties in complying with the NOx emission requirements, the NOx influencing components including injection timing/systems, combustion chamber conditions, compression in cylinders and turbocharger system efficiency. Ships in service are predominantly designed for HFO operation only with a relatively small tank capacity for marine gas oil. A vessel's capability to segregate the dual fuels in use and provide proper dual fuel management/piping arrangements, will be factors which will influence a Charterer's decision as to which vessels to charter in the future. Inadequate supplies of low sulphur fuel oils will mean Charterers to will need to bunker more frequently which would have significant effects on the vessel's daily operating costs. It would also have a pronounced effect of the cargo carrying capacity the vessel could uplift, plus port call delays and associated charges. From an engineer's perspective, experience with 2 stroke engines has shown that long term operation on low sulphur fuels and the use of high base number cylinder oils may lead to abnormal build up on piston crowns, piston ring grooves and cylinder liner scuffing. Low sulphur fuels will require lower based cylinder oils to avoid such operational problems. The lower based lube oils should provide the operator with a reduction in lube oil costs. However, the need for two different cylinder oil base types to equate with the dual fuel specifications, with high and low sulphur levels presents further problems with segregated storage requirements and, possibly, capacity onboard. The maximum operational time for the main engine to use fuel oils with low sulphur content and high base value lube oils appear to vary depending upon engine type and power output load profile. The relevant engine manufacturer and cylinder oil suppliers should be consulted prior to operation on low sulphur fuels, in order to avoid over based cylinder lube oils causing problems by over neutralisation of the acids formed from the combustion process, resulting in
deposit generating calcium compounds forming on the piston crowns, piston rings and cylinder head valves. In summary, Owners, Operators and Charterers will need to ensure that their bunker specifications, fuel supply agreements, and charterparties all take the new requirements into account. In addition, the possible impact of inadequate supplies of low sulphur fuel on operational costs will also need to be considered. For vessels operating in the SECAs, fuel change over procedures, fuel specification charts and associated documentation will additionally be required. Important Dates: 19 May 06 Baltic SECA enters into force (MARPOL Annex VI and EU directive 1999/32/EC). 11 Aug 06 Maximum sulphur content of bunker fuel for passenger ships to/from EU ports - 1.5% (EU directive). 11 Aug 07 North Sea and English Channel SECA enters into force under EU Directive while the IMO date is 22 Nov 07. How the three month period in between will be interpreted remains unclear. Members should probably plan for compliance with the earlier date to avoid possible problems. 19 May 08 All ships must have obtained the IAPP (International Air Pollution Preventative) certificate. N.B.: This is the latest date. Many vessels will need to comply before then - see earlier article) 01 Jan 10 Maximum sulphur content of bunker fuels for ships alongside berths in any EU port - 0.1%. Anchorages will probably also be included, subject to distance off shore. (EU directive).
Green Eco Tek 570 Central Ave. Bldg. G Lake Elsinore California 92530 September 3, 2008 Subject: Marpol Annex VI & Omstar Dear Marcie, Thank you for taking my phone calls regarding Marpol Annex VI and Bunker C fuel. We are contacting you as a direct result of many environmental agencies call to ban bunker fuel. Bunker Fuel is the least expensive fuel used in the world today at a cost of around $1.25 per gallon. Banning the use of Bunker Fuel is not the solution to reducing pollution. Bunker fuel is a waste product of refining and needs to be consumed instead of accumulating as waste. The oil companies will not store it so it will be sold. The best way to solve this issue is to find a solution that will give both sides of this issue what they want. We believe we have that solution. Our product Omstar D-1280X that has been used for more than 22 years and has been in development for over 40 years. D-1280X and B-15 are an eco-friendly, bio-degradable, non-toxic, breakthrough in technology that has gotten the attention of the industry, worldwide for their high cleaning and lubrication attributes to the injectors and to other internal engine parts. The product's ester molecules combine with iron molecules on metal-rubbing surfaces inside cylinders and fuel injectors, forming, through chemisorption, an "iron-soap" that increases engine lubricity, reducing engine temperature and improving fuel economy. That is of particular importance in upper cylinder areas (where pistons change direction rapidly) that are very hot due to lack of lubricity by engine oil. Also, the additive is a combustion improver (anti-smoke agent) causing decreases in exhaust emissions. Fuel economy is improved by the sizeable reductions in HC [hydrocarbons] which are mainly unburned fuel. These products have already been extensively tested by EPA, South West AQMD and CARB. Omstar B-15 is a specially developed blend of Omstar D-1280X to be used with Low or High Sulfur Diesel or Bunker C fuel. The results obtained have revealed a significant carbon reduction in the fire tubes, lower emissions including SOx and NOx. For ship applications, Omstar B-15 allows the boiler to function at low levels of O2 (2.8%) without emitting ashes in the chimney. The lower the 02 level the higher the efficiency. B-15 brings Bunker C fuel to specifications of ULSD, without removing the lubricity, while keeping the high BTU's of Bunker C. That is a very important issue to ship owners. Data collected from tests performed by the California Air Resources Board and EPA certified labs worldwide confirmed that by mixing 1 ounce of D-1280X per 10 gallons of fuel, D-1280X cut emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by an average of 5%, hydrocarbons (HC) by 39%, particulate matter (PM) or soot by 28%, carbon monoxide (CO) by 27% and carbon dioxide by (CO2) by 7%. Smoke opacity was reduced by an average of 52%, and fuel economy improved by an average of 27%. Engine heat was reduced by an average of 57%, while maintenance cost reduced by an average of 30%50%. At current rates of growth, oceangoing ships will generate 53% of the particulates, 46% of the nitrogen oxides and more than 94% of the sulfur oxides emitted by all forms of transportation in the U.S. by 2030, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates. That compares with levels for the same pollutants in 2001 of 17%, 12% and 49%, respectively, according to the EPA. Something must be done
or we will all pay the price one way or another. We would like to meet with your organization y to discuss our product as a viable alternative to reduce pollution. Our product reduces pollution in all fuels so it will also work with low sulfur diesel as well (actually it will be better for the engine, since the product brings back the lost lubricity in ULSD). We believe it is important to come up with a solution that satisfies ships owners as well as environmental organizations like "Friends of The Earth". The lower BTU value of the proposed low sulfur fuel under Marpol Annex VI will cause the price of transporting crude oil to refineries to increase dramatically. This will also affect the cost of all goods transported by ships around the world. The price of diesel is already very high due to the high demand from diesel powered vehicles. The demand for low sulfur diesel cannot be met by the oil companies if all the ships of the world switched to low sulfur diesel as proposed by Marpol VI. Diesel accounts for less than 13% of a barrel of oil. If the world's ships stopped using Bunker C (No.6) the oil companies could not afford to store it so they would simply sell it to countries like China or India which would most likely use it to make electricity. These countries will not care how high the sulfur content is or how much it pollutes the air. Therefore the problem regarding pollution has not been solved, it has been shifted to land based electric power plants. We get pollution from China every day as a result of wind currents so no one is immune to this issue. The current leverage that your organization, our government and the IMO have now will be gone if Bunker C is no longer being used by ships. It is much better to simply mix OMSTAR B-15 at the refinery level with Bunker C and reduce pollution. This way you can reduce the pollution and control how Bunker C is used worldwide by continuing to allow ships to use it. We agree that its is important to reduce sulfur in all fuels. Our product Omstar B-15 used in conjunction with low sulfur diesel will also produce less pollution. We have independent test lab results for the last 22 years for you and your organization to review that can be found on our website: www.greenecotek.com. I have also included some of this data with this email. We are currently testing Omstar B-15 with Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and we expect to have results from this test soon. Please understand that our fuel additive will reduce pollution in any fuel it is used in conjunction with. It is always best to look at all aspects of this issue to include a comparison between Low Sulfur Diesel and Bunker C (No.6) with Omstar B-15: Low Sulfur Diesel Compared to Bunker C (No. 6) 1. Low Sulfur Diesel costs approximately 3x the cost of Bunker C 2. The Oil Companies cannot meet the demand if all ships switched to Low Sulfur Diesel 3. The Cost of Overseeing Fuel Sulfur Levels is very expensive for ship owners etc. 4. Low Sulfur Diesel has lower BTUs compared to Bunker C 5. Ships using Low Sulfur Diesel will need more fuel to go the same distance 6. Burning More Fuel to go the same distance creates more pollution 7. Maintenance will be lowered compared to untreated Bunker C 8. Low Sulfur Diesel emissions will be higher than Bunker C (with Omstar B-15) 9. Cost of transporting goods all over the world will dramatically increase Bunker C (No.6) with Omstar B-15 Compared to Low Sulfur Diesel:
1. Bunker costs one third the cost of Low Sulfur Diesel. 2. Bunker C Fuel Readily available 3. Fuel Sample will not be required if mixed with Omstar B-15 4. Bunker C has a higher BTU Level than Low Sulfur Diesel 5. Ships using Bunker C will need less fuel to go the same distance compared to Low Sulfur Diesel 6. Burning less Fuel to go the same distance will make less pollution 7. Maintenance will be lowered by 45% compared to untreated Bunker C 8. Emissions will be lower than Low Sulfur Diesel, up to 50% less compared to Bunker C 9. Cost of transporting goods all over the world will remain the same or cost less The world economies can ill afford the higher cost that would be associated with switching over to low sulfur diesel now or any time in the foreseeable future. The best solution is a solution that addresses everyone concerns today. It is our belief that Bunker C (No. 6) fuel treated with OMSTAR B-15 will produce less pollution than low sulfur Diesel that is being advocated. With that being said and after we have supplied you with the latest test results, we would like your organization to support our company in getting OMSTAR B-15 to be added at the refinery level. A much more viable solution is needed than what is currently proposed under Marpol Annex VI. Banning or placing limits on the usage of bunker oil should proceed only after careful weighing of the potential impacts of any replacements especially the most likely candidate, low sulfur diesel fuel. Please go to this site regarding Bunker C spills as this is also a concern: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/12/14/EDM3TTDAO.DTLPlease take a look at the videos posted on You Tube as well: www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=598D61AE69B6FFB4 Feel free to forward this letter to your colleagues who are concerned about this issue. We are currently working on integrating Omstar in all the fuel used in the Philippines. Many other countries will soon follow their example. Thank you. Sincerely, Sean McDonald President Phone: (951) 259-5169 Fax: (951) 471-0478 Email: sean@greenecotek.com www.greenecotek.com
Includes 5 detailed case studies
“The maritime industry must ‘wake up’ and do something about its emissions before ships are denied entry into European ports, according to Jacques Barrot’s cabinet chief.” (Lloyd’s List – 14th March 2008)
Lloyd’s Maritime Academy presents...
REDUCING EMISSIONS TO AIR FROM SHIPPING THE INVALUABLE GUIDE TO NEW LEGAL AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS Wednesday 12th – Thursday 13th November 2008 Bonhill House, London EC2
TWO HIGHLY INTENSIVE DAYS TO: ✓ Examine the legal and practical challenges for reducing emissions ✓ Discover the latest EU policies in supporting future expectations ✓ Listen to the very latest developments in MARPOL Annex VI ✓ Debate the viable options for the shipping industry ✓ Take away best industry technological advances through case study examples ✓ Discover the latest in emissions’ trading schemes and the opportunities for shipping in carbon markets
Seminar Sponsor
Official Publications
Official Charity
12 Hours CPD The Solicitors Regulation Authority
Registration Number: +44 (0)20 7017 5510 www.lloydsmaritimeacademy.com/airemissions This brochure has been produced using environmentally friendly paper sourced from sustainable forests and is chlorine-free
REDUCING EMISSIONS TO AIR FROM SHIPPING Wednesday 12th – Thursday 13th November 2008 Bonhill House, London EC2
DAY 1: WEDNESDAY 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 09.00 Registration and coffee 09.30 Chairman’s opening session A representative from the International Maritime Organization (to confirm)
09.40 The role of the EU in supporting future
expectations
WHY YOU SHOULD ATTEND: Lloyd’s Maritime Academy is delighted to announce Reducing emissions to air from shipping, the first practical seminar to highlight the latest legal and technical developments in response to national and international regulations. The timing of this seminar is crucial as the maritime industry will not escape new legislation designed to cut emissions such as sulphur and carbon dioxide. Ship fuel is highly polluting and new positive solutions for polluting far less needs to be developed as stricter standards worldwide are likely to be introduced on SOx, NOx and particulate emissions levels. This seminar will provide an opportunity to listen to some of the new regulations that will form a revision to Marpol Annex VI which are likely to be highly controversial. Through a series of specialist case studies, the speakers will highlight some of the challenges facing the shipping and maritime sectors today and in the future, bringing together equipment specialists, port authorities, suppliers of fuel and shipping charterers who need to work much more closely to create new innovative techniques to find solutions to reduce air pollution. Come ready to debate one of the most challenging sectors for the shipping industry. Discover some of the practical ways to meet new standards – listen to the industry specialists and take away concise examples of how the shipping industry needs to make a difference.
• Local, national and worldwide air quality control legislation • Regulatory and legislative developments underway to reduce or eliminate vessel emissions. What is driving this? • Paying a higher price based on environmental performance of vessels – the commercial reality for charterers and owners
Hans Meijer, Policy Officer Clean Air and Transport, Directorate-General Environment, European Commission 10.30 Questions and discussion 10.45 Coffee 11.00 Developments in MARPOL Annex VI – latest review
of the proposed changes – the practical adoption of the law for the shipping sector • Local, national and worldwide air quality control legislation allows sea areas to be designated Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) where environmentally justified • The impacts of ship emission control options on the environment, the shipping and refining industries • Compliance for existing engines – the challenges for ship owners and operators • Following March IMO MEPC meeting, what is the very latest position relating to the NOx Technical Code? • Update from IMO MEPC 58 and the ramifications of enforcing new rules and regulations
Peter Hinchliffe, Marine Director, International Chamber of Shipping & Simon Brown, Director of Business Development, Martek Marine Limited 12.30 Questions and discussion 12.45 Lunch
WHO SHOULD ATTEND:
13.45 Solutions to marine air quality concerns – the
responsibility of ports’ environmental management programmes for cleaner air quality
✓ Ship charterers
✓ Tanker and container operators
✓ Ship owners
✓ Maritime lawyers
✓ Operations and Technical
✓ Environmental officers
Managers ✓ Engine manufacturers
✓ Port authorities and operators ✓ Class societies
✓ Marine fuel suppliers
• What programmes are port authorities undertaking to improve air quality? • Are more vigilant port state control measures likely with the advent of new regulation and legislation? • What new initiatives are in the pipeline working towards change in busy working ports?
Peter Barham, Sustainable Development Manager, Associated British Ports & Howard Holt, Head of Corporate Affairs, Port of Dover
LLOYD'S MARITIME ACADEMY Celebrating over 30 years of providing training for the maritime industry, Lloyd's Maritime Academy works with leading academic and professional bodies to deliver a broad portfolio of seminars, masterclasses, distance learning courses and corporate training programmes, offering unrivalled learning opportunities to over 5,000 international participants every year.
In-company training Lloyd's Maritime Academy delivers in-house training programmes worldwide and offers an efficient and cost-effective way to achieve corporate goals by developing the skills, knowledge and performance of your people. Please contact Jon Duff on: +44 (0)20 7017 4399 or by email: jon.duff@informa.com
BUY THE SEMINAR PAPERS! See back page for details
To register call the Booking Hotline: +44 (0)20 7017 5510
ING REDUC NS TO AIR IO S IS M G E SHIPPIN FROM
14.45 CASE STUDY Bio-LNG as the cleanest, cheapest,
13.15 Lunch
renewable fuel for ships – an example of the infrastructure in a large busy working port • Production of sustainable products to help the shipping industry to tackle air emissions head-on
Peter van der Gaag, Holland Innovation Team (HIT), The Netherlands 15.35 Questions and discussion
14.15 CASE STUDY Examples of technology in engine
design - operators’ choices and balancing the outcomes • Convincing ship owners to convert existing diesel ship propulsion into gun engine technology • Clean emissions and profit depend on each other to ensure efficiency • Lowering costs of building ships and cutting fuel consumption
Kazimierz Holubowicz, Owner, Holubowicz Institute for Advanced Studies, Canada
15.45 Tea 16.00 What are the viable options for the shipping
industry? • • • •
15.15 Tea
Emissions to air: drivers, pressures and impacts Corporate strategies – is it all image? Technical fixes and cost effectiveness Is there a green market willing to pay?
15.30 CASE STUDY Reducing fuel consumption and
Frank Stuer-Lauridsen, Managing Director, Litehauz, Denmark & Peter Swift, Managing Director, Intertanko
emissions through wind assistance • Using new and innovative ways to significantly reduce emissions • Helping to reduce bunker consumption and fuel use • Case study and costing – getting the balance of investment right
Fabian Juers, Key Account Manager, SkySails GmbH & Co. KG, Germany
17.10 Questions and discussion 17.20 Chairman’s summary and close of day one
16.20 Questions and discussion, including chairman’s
summary
DAY 2: THURSDAY 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 09.30 Chairman’s opening session Simon Brown, Director of Business Development, Martek Marine Limited 09.40 Emissions trading schemes and the opportunities
16.40 Close of seminar
FUTURE EVENTS Hull and Machinery Insurance, 15th – 16th September 2008 International P&I Insurance, 17th – 19th September 2008
for shipping in carbon markets Bunker winter school, 29th – 31st October 2008
John Aitken, Secretary General, SEAaT 10.20 Risk management aspect of sustainability
Bills of Lading Masterclass, 3rd – 5th November 2008
- solutions in the carbon market Kaushik Jadhao, Financial Advisory Services, Deloitte Financial Advisory Services B.V, The Netherlands
Ice Operations, 28th – 30th November 2008 Background to Shipping, 8th – 12th December 2008
11.00 Questions and discussion 11.15 Coffee
lma@informa.com
11.30 CASE STUDY Finding alternative solutions to low
sulphur fuel oils including the progress with developing legislation outside of Europe Andy Osbourne, Business Development Director, BP/Krystallon
CENTRES FOR SEAFARERS Centres For Seafarers follows the aims and objectives of three Societies - The Apostleship of the Sea, The British & International Sailors’ Society and The Mission to Seafarers in providing and caring for the welfare of seafarers, retired seafarers, their dependents and families. www.lloydsmaritimeacademy.com/cfs
• Are new technologies being driven by proposed regulations and legislation? • What is the latest advance in technology and what are some of the practical operational challenges? • What does the future look like?
Lloyd’s List is the only daily provider of international shipping and maritime news, with a reputation for excellence since 1734. Lloyd’s List covers news on all aspects of the shipping industry with markets data, opinion and features in every issue. Subscription to the daily newspaper now includes Lloyd’s Ship Manager. Lloyd’s List is available online at www.lloydslist.com For further information, please email marketing@lloydslist.com
Arnauld Filancia, Manager, Services Marketing & Communications, Wärtsilä Corporation, Finland
SPONSORSHIP & EXHIBITION OPPORTUNITIES
12.15 CASE STUDY Sox scrubbing technologies for
marine exhaust gases
13.00 Questions and discussion
For further details please contact Paul Skinner Email: paul.skinner@informa.com or call +44 (0)20 7017 4402
Book online: www.lloydsmaritimeacademy.com/airemissions
REDUCING EMISSIONS TO AIR FROM SHIPPING
VIP CODE:
LE/LP/CLC/AB/AT/AC/TR
Wednesday 12th – Thursday 13th November 2008 Bonhill House, London EC2A 4BX www.lloydsmaritimeacademy.com/airemissions
LM1097/WEB
Event Code
LM1097
SPECIAL DISCOUNT OFFER for clients and members of Wärtsilä Corporation
GROUP DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE Call +44 (0)20 7017 5510 5 EASY WAYS TO REGISTER
Full day SCENARIO BASED workshop on managing a security incident
To register with a discount please email alica.brlajova@informa.com, quote ref: LM1097.WARC.
DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE If you are unable to attend you can purchase the International REDUCING EMISSIONS TO AIR FROM SHIPPING at just £350 for UK (or £375 for overseas). Simply tick the box within Step 1, send it with payment and your copy will be on its way to after the seminar. This important manual will be the source of invaluable reference for the future. For further information call: +44(0)20 7017 5522 Fax: +44(0)207 017 4745 or email: papers.info@informa.com
REDUCI NG EMISSI ONS TO FROM SHIPPI AIR NG
Customer Services Tel: +44 (0)20 7017 5510 Fax: +44 (0)20 7017 4745 Email: maritimecustserv@informa.com www.lloydsmaritimeacademy.com/airemissions
Mail:
PO BOX 406 West Byfleet KT14 6WL
Are we mailing you correctly? To update your contact details on our database please visit www.updates.informa.com Would you like to be informed about products and services via e-mail? Yes No
VENUE DETAILS STEP 1: WORK OUT THE PRICE (please tick option) Option 1 : Seminar delegate fee
£1249 + VAT @ 17.5% (£218.58) = Total £1467.58
Option 2 : Seminar fee: Bookings after 1st October 2008
£1349 + VAT @ 17.5% (£236.08) = Total £1585.08
Bonhill House, London EC2A 4BX 1-3 Bonhill Street London EC2A 4BX Tel: +44 (0)20 7588 2334 Fax: +44 (0)20 7588 2326 Nearest Underground station - Old Street or Moorgate
ACCOMMODATION DETAILS I am unable to attend, but please reserve me ___ set(s) of documentation @ £350 per set (£375 overseas) A donation from the fee for each delegate participating in our 2008 maritime events will be made to Centres For Seafarers
Total £
STEP 2: DELEGATE DETAILS (for ease, attach your business card) – Please photocopy form for multiple bookings 1. Delegate (Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/Dr) Family Name______________________________________________________________________ First Name _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Job Title _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Company _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Department ______________________________________________________________________________________ Email__________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Direct Telephone _____________________________________ Mobile________________________________________________ Address________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Country _______________________________________________ Postcode/Zip Code _________________________________________ Fax___________________________________________________ Nature of Company Business ____________________________ VAT Reg no ____________________________________________ 2. Who do you report to? (Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/Dr) Family Name ______________________________________________________ First Name _____________________________________________ Job Title________________________________________________ Email___________________________________________
3. Who is the Head of Training? (Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/Dr) Family Name _____________________________________________________ First Name_____________________________________________ Job Title _______________________________________________ Email __________________________________________
___________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Direct Telephone _________________________________________ Direct Telephone ________________________________________ Mobile_________________________________________________ Mobile ________________________________________________
STEP 3: PAYMENT DETAILS
Enclosed is a cheque made payable to Informa UK Ltd (Ref: LM1097) Please charge my credit card
(CVV: Last 3 digits on signature strip on back of credit card. AMEX - 4 digit number on front of card)
Expiry Date _ _ / _ _ CVV Number zxzxzxzxz Card No zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxz Card Holder’s Name xxxxxxxxxxxxx Contact Tel Noxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Card Billing Address xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Signature
________________________________________________
Date _
_ / _ _/ _ _
Yes I agree to the Terms & Cancellations Conditions as stated on this form For payment by Bank transfer (excl. US$ & HK$) Informa UK Ltd, Account Number: 01825550 Nat West Bank, Colchester, Essex UK Sort Code: 60-06-06 SWIFT code: NWBKGB2L. Ref: LM1097 and delegate’s name Delegates who do not pay with their booking are requested to provide a copy of their credit card / cheque details to help payment allocation. Staff at the event will request a credit card guarantee for delegates without proof of payment.
Sign up for your free 5 days trial of Lloyd’s List today. Contact Loukia Tsagkli at loukia.tsagkli@informa.com
For further information on payment details visit www.payments.informa.com/lle or call +44 (0)20 7017 5510
The cost of accommodation is not included in the event fee. As a free service, reduced rate hotel accommodation can be arranged by contacting Zibrant. Tel: +44 (0)1332 285590 Email: informa@zibrant.co.uk Web: www.zibrant.co.uk/informa
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Please list below any special requirements you may have
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FEE: This includes all sessions, lunch, refreshments and available documentation. Bookings made after Wednesday 29th October 2008 must be accompanied by a credit card confirmation. VAT: Under EU legislation delegates from all countries are required to pay VAT at the relevant rate on any conference taking place in an EU member state. Delegates from outside the EU member states may be entitled to reclaim this cost. Informa, in conjunction with Meridian VAT Reclaim, the world’s leading VAT recovery organisation, can help you to make a significant reduction on your attendance costs. A claim form will be sent to you with your booking confirmation. CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: This seminar carries 12 hours under the Solicitors Regulation Authority CPD Scheme. Level: Intermediate /Update. For enquiries contact the registered company Informa UK Ltd. CANCELLATIONS: Cancellations received in writing by Wednesday 29th October 2008 will be subject to a service charge of £110. It is regretted that cancellations received after this time cannot be accepted and are subject to the full event fee. Substitutions are welcome at any time. It may be necessary for reasons beyond the control of the organisers to alter the content and timing of the programme or the identity of the speakers. In the unfortunate event that an event is cancelled Informa are not liable for any costs incurred by delegates in connection with their attendance. This contract is subject to English Law. ARE YOU REGISTERED?: You will always receive an acknowledgement of your booking. If you do not receive anything please call us on +44 (0)20 7017 5510 to make sure we have received your booking CALL MONITORING: Telephone calls to Informa UK Ltd may be recorded or monitored in order to check the quality of the service being provided. DATA PROTECTION: The personal information shown, or provided by you, will be held on a database and may be shared with companies in Informa UK Ltd in the UK and internationally. They may be used to keep you up-to-date with developments in your industry. We believe that you are the correct person to receive details of conferences connected with this subject. Sometimes your details may be obtained from, or made available to external companies for marketing purposes. If you do not wish your details to be used for this purpose please write to the Database Manager at Informa UK Ltd, Informa House, 30-32 Mortimer Street, London, W1W 7RE, UK. Tel: +44 (0)20 7017 4555, Fax: +44 (0)20 7017 4743, Email:database@informa.com. By completing a registration for this event, you agree to the terms and conditions. Lloyd’s and the Lloyd’s Crest are the registered trademarks of the Society incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871 by the name of “Lloyd’s”.
Informa UK Ltd Registered in England and Wales No (GB) 10712954. Registered Office: 37-41 Mortimer St, London W1T 3JH VAT registered No (GB) 365 4626 36