In Hellenic Shipping News 27/03/2015
The introduction of new low sulphur marine oil regulations on vessels sailing through specific areas around the world, means additional and in most case substantial costs for shipowners. However, the main issue at the moment isn’t that of additional costs, rather their implementation on charter-party agreements, which is still pending, as most parties haven’t yet found a viable way of doing that.
In its latest weekly report, shipbroker Intermodal noted that since the beginning of the year, “new and progressive emission regulations for vessels operating within the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) particularly established for the control and minimization of SOx and NOx emissions. As per MARPOL Annex VI new guidelines, vessels are obliged to burn bunkers with a maximum of 0.10% Sulphur content in the main, auxiliary engines and boilers, within the SECAs whereas up to December 2014, the Sulphur content limit was no more than 1.00%. The SECAs presently covers the North Ocean, Baltic Ocean, North American coastline and US Caribbean. Furthermore, existing EU Law already requires ships whilst in EU ports to use fuels with 0.1% Sulphur content while at berth, unless they use shore-side electricity”.
According to Katerina Restis from the Tanker Chartering department of Intermodal, “in order for vessels to comply with the new requirements they need to switch to ultra-low Sulphur fuel types and currently the most viable option seems to be Low Sulphur Marine Gas Oil. The changeover from HFO to LSMGO sensibly poses technical and operational challenges as the two fuels operate at a different temperature, in addition to increased risk of thermal shocks to machinery, as well as the difference in viscosity that needs to be considered in order to avoid fuel pump failures. Vessels may also comply with the SOx/NOx restrictions with the use of Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems that “clean” the emissions before released into the atmosphere though it should be noted that the installation costs remain substantial”, Restis said.
She added that “SOx emissions from shipping may also be controlled with the use of alternative fuels, LNG or bio-fuels. It is indicated that LNG use as a marine fuel remains cheaper than MGO and stands as a better choice in terms of reserve to production ratio. Its use to propel ships represents a “green” alternative, with 0% Sulphur content, while when ignited has nearly zero Oxide emissions. It does not affect the operational qualities of the vessel though specialized training for crew members is essential. Wartsila, Rolls Royce Marine, Mitsubishi and MAN are the main manufacturers of gas or dual fuel engines for ships. The technical, safety requirements and investment costs signify higher suitability for new-buildings. At present, the most immediate difficulty is the limited available infrastructure for bunkering the aforesaid vessels. Moreover, bio-fuels are an alternative to lower carbon concentration in the propulsion of ships. For instance, biodiesel and vegetable oils can be used partly in diesel engines or as an alternative for HFO consumption. However there is not sufficient practical experience and currently they are more expensive than oil products”.
At the same time however, “the employment of the new restrictions on how freight rates reflecting the new market criteria is yet to be integrated into charter-party agreements. The Worldscale Association published a fixed differential of $48.35 per mile to embody the cost of burning 0.1% Gasoil within the SECAs, compared to the 380 CST fuel oil grade delivered basis Rotterdam used to calculate Worldscale flat rates. Ship-Owners and brokers are incorporating new ways to negotiate the additional emerged costs into their charter contracts. The definition of these costs or which party should carry their burden, nevertheless still remains ambiguous”.
Concluding her analysis, Katerina Restis said that “the main industry debate is that of the ability of implementation of these new regulations rather than that of compliance. In essence, Owners need to evaluate any return on investment in new technology with the risks and remarkable increased costs of higher price of low-Sulphur fuel, but also the cost of technological failure caused by burning low-Sulphur fuel. In the longer term, the staging of compliance will most probably adjust to market conditions”.
