Connect with us

IMO 2020

SMW 2019: IMO 2020 sulphur cap doomsday predictions ‘unfounded’

‘I don’t think these dire predictions are entirely justified,’ says Alphaliner Chief Analyst at TOC Asia conference.

Admin

Published

on

5cb0129264e15 1555042962

Doomsday predictions surrounding the IMO 2020 sulphur fuel cap and the impact on container lines are unfounded, according to Alphaliner chief analyst Tan Hua Joo.

Speaking at the TOC Asia Container Supply Chain conference in Singapore on Tuesday (9 April), Tan poured scorn on claims of market chaos and carrier bankruptcies.

“This is the most important subject for the industry in the coming months,” admitted Tan.

“But there’s been some pretty catastrophic predictions being made, and while there’s a lot of uncertainty on IMO 2020, I don’t think these dire predictions are entirely justified.”

For example, he said estimates of the new regulation costing up to US$50bn were overblown, and instead placed the cost at around $10bn on an annualised basis, adding that this would be the “top end and the likely cost will be much lower”.

Furthermore, Tan said, carriers have shown resilience in the past in overcoming some major challenges wrought by new regulations. The build up to the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) in 2015 and the VGM container weight regulation in 2016, for example, both entailed similar confusion and apparent lack of preparedness – but nonetheless both events passed with almost zero market disruption and high compliance, he said.

“Having said that, a $10bn bill is still an extremely large one for the industry to bare, and it’s suddenly the costliest IMO rule that’s ever been attempted,” he added.

The biggest point of uncertainty remains the cost spread between the new low sulphur fuel oil (LFSO) and the current heavy fuel oil (HFO). Tan pointed out the current spread between HFO and the 0.1% sulphur fuel required for SECA – which is significantly less than the 0.5% global cap from IMO 2020 – is around $200.

“And the cost of producing 0.5% LFSO is very likely much lower than for the 0.1% spread,” he explained, cautioning that initially it could be higher since it will take time for the new fuel’s supply and demand dynamics to level out.

“Any teething problems will be resolved relatively quickly and certainly within 12 months, and I expect the spread to become significantly below $200.”
Plus, Tan noted, three years ago HFO costs were at $600 per tonne compared with the current $400 per tonne, meaning there is room for the industry to absorb the extra costs on the horizon.

Another key factor at play is carrier uptake of scrubbers, with demand for the exhaust gas cleaning systems – which allow carriers to continue burning HFO – surging in recent months after an initial period of inertia, according to Tan, who said the “economics of scrubbers are too compelling that even Maersk changed its mind on them”.

He added: “Right now there’s a real sense of urgency from ship owners to take action and scrubber orders are constantly increasing. Based on the data we’ve collected, more than 20% of global container capacity will be on ships with scrubbers installed by the end of 2020 – which is much higher than initial predictions of 5-10%.”

One potential danger of the increased scrubber uptake is how carriers will react if the fuel cost spread is higher than expected.

“If the spread turns out to be higher than I predicted then those who do have scrubbers will have a significant cost advantage – how they’ll use this advantage to price and gain market share remains to be seen,” he warned.

Interestingly for shippers, perhaps, is Tan’s assertion that carriers are down-playing their scrubber strategies so as not to disturb the narrative on the need to recover the higher fuel costs from customers. He claimed carriers’ bunker adjustment factor (BAF) formulae are not transparent, since most are based on 100% usage of LSFO and don’t take into account scrubber usage.

Tan said one bonus for carriers from the increased scrubber uptake is the resulting temporary reduction in capacity, with vessels requiring 30-40 days in a ship yard for a retrofit.

In 2019, 200 ships totalling 2.4m TEU in capacity will be removed from the market for scrubber installations. This translates to 30 ships per month, or 300,000 TEU representing 1.3-1.5% of total global capacity.

“It’s not a big number, but anything that reduces supply is positive news for the shipping lines at this point,” he noted.

Source: TOC Asia
Photo credit: TOC Events Worldwide
Published: 12 April, 2019

 

Continue Reading

Ammonia

AM Green plans to build green ammonia plant at Indian port

Initiative also includes development of green ammonia handling, storage and bunkering infrastructure, pilot bunkering operations, safety procedures and training programmes, says VOC Port Authority.

Admin

Published

on

By

india flag

VO Chidambaranar (VOC) Port Authority on Friday (29 May) said it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with India’s ammonia producer AM Green Ammonia to collaborate in the development of a green ammonia production plant.

The plant will have a capacity of one million tonnes per annum (MTPA) at Tuticorin.

The initiative also includes development of green ammonia handling, storage and bunkering infrastructure, pilot bunkering operations, safety procedures and training programmes. 

The project is expected to support the development of green fuel corridors connecting VOC Port with major ports in Europe and Asia, thereby strengthening India’s position in the global green fuels value chain.

VOC Port also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Bureau Veritas (India) Pvt. Ltd., to collaborate on Green Port certification, emissions accounting, ESG reporting, safety validation, development of green bunkering practices, and establishment of a Centre of Excellence for green fuels and sustainability.

The port also plans for an upcoming 750 m³ green methanol bunkering facility.

 

Photo credit: Naveed Ahmed on Unsplash
Published: 3 June, 2026

Continue Reading

Port & Regulatory

Study: Major drop in ship sulphur emissions confirmed following IMO regulations

National Centre for Atmospheric Science study found that the average sulphur content in ship fuel dropped nearly tenfold in open ocean areas following IMO’s 2020 regulation.

Admin

Published

on

By

shraga kopstein on Unsplash

Recent global regulations have significantly reduced sulphur emissions from ships, helping to improve air quality in coastal regions – confirmed by a recent international study led by researchers at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. 

The research, published in Environmental Science: Atmospheres, used aircraft and ground-based instruments to measure sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted by ships in the North-East Atlantic and European coastal waters between 2019 and 2023.

The team found that the average sulphur content in ship fuel dropped nearly tenfold in open ocean areas following the International Maritime Organization’s 2020 regulation, which capped sulphur content in marine fuel at 0.5%. 

Before the change, many ships exceeded the previous 3.5% limit. After 2020, only a small number of ships were found to breach the new standard.

In European sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), such as the English Channel and the Port of Tyne, sulphur levels were even lower – well below the stricter 0.1% limit. Interestingly, ports outside these zones, like Valencia in Spain, also showed low sulphur levels, likely due to EU rules requiring cleaner fuel when ships are docked for extended periods.

This is the first study to use aircraft-based measurements and predictions from the Ship Traffic Emission Assessment Model (STEAM3) to assess ship emissions outside of sulphur control zones since the 2020 regulation came into effect. The findings support the widely held view that ships now emit around seven times less sulphur than before the rule change – an important step toward cleaner air and healthier coastal environments.

Note: The research, titled ‘SO2 and NOx emissions from ships in North-East Atlantic waters: in situ measurements and comparison with an emission model’ can be found here. 

 

Photo credit: shraga kopstein on Unsplash
Published: 8 December, 2025

Continue Reading

Interview

IBIA Annual Convention 2025: ‘Exciting times’ for post IMO 2020 bunker suppliers, states Equatorial

Choong Sheen Mao, Chief Operating Officer, Equatorial, describes to Manifold Times the pre/post IMO 2020 challenges and evolution of bunker suppliers.

Admin

Published

on

By

Sheen Mao MT

The International Bunkering Industry Association (IBIA) will be hosting its flagship Annual Convention in Hong Kong at the Hong Kong Convention Exhibition & Convention Centre between 18 to 20 November 2025, as part of Hong Kong Maritime Week.

Choong Sheen Mao, Chief Operating Officer, Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services (Equatorial), speaks to bunkering publication Manifold Times about the challenges of a post IMO 2020 bunker supplier.

MT: How does Equatorial continue to offer customer assurance and maintenance of marine fuel quality to ISO8217 standards despite increasing complexity of bunker fuel blends?

We maintain our focus to provide compliant, quality and competitively priced products to our customers. There is no shortcut. We source our products from a wide range of cargo producers and suppliers. We continue to be strict and vigilant with our testing programme for our products before delivering them to our customers. Equatorial has deepened our engagement with the wider industry to have a better and up-to-date understanding of the existing and new marine fuels.

MT: Can you share the evolution of commercial marine fuel procurement, blending and trading strategies on the back of increasing fuel types (pre/post IMO 2020)?

Pre IMO 2020, the main types of marine fuel procured and consumed by vessels were high-sulphur fuel oil, marine diesel oil and marine gas oil. Trading strategies were therefore closely linked to that within the oil industry.

However, many of the new fuel types are from other industries. For example, biofuels, methanol and ammonia are mainly products from the chemical and agriculture industries. There are marked differences between these industries and the energy industry (in particular, the marine fuels industry). LNG is from the gas industry which is distinct from the oil industry.

Without an existing liquid paper market for many of these commodities (especially as a marine fuel), the price risk management is less straightforward. Furthermore, commodity prices are no longer the sole consideration for price itself. The price of compliance must be considered. This could range from guaranteeing the origin of the marine fuel, its sulphur properties as well as its carbon intensity. The list goes on.

MT: Operational wise, what are the changing role and responsibilities of a bunker supplier to date, compared to before IMO 2020?

The role and responsibility of a bunker supplier have evolved. Fundamentally, it has been about providing quality marine fuels at competitive prices. Quantity assurance has been a critical concern which led to the mandatory implementation of the mass flow meter system for bunkering in the Port of Singapore. Interestingly, due to the nature of credit terms in the bunker industry, bunker suppliers also performed the role of “bankers” by extending favourable credit terms to shipowners and charterers.

These days, post IMO 2020, things have become even more complicated. Today, a bunker supplier retains the abovementioned roles and responsibilities, and much more – it has to ensure compliance with a plethora of rules and regulations. Compliance not only with sulphur cap requirements, but with international and regional sanctions and restrictions unrelated to the quality of the marine fuel itself. In fact, especially with alternative low- and zero-carbon marine fuels, this means compliance with standards, rules and regulations on sustainability such as the European Renewable Energy Directive and/or International Sustainability and Carbon Certification. There is also the need to comply with increasingly stringent safety regulations on both conventional and alternative marine fuels.

In addition to the above, a post IMO 2020 bunker supplier is still expected to supply compliant and quality fuel at competitive prices.

MT: Equatorial is Singapore’s largest local-born supplier; what is the next big thing for the company?

Equatorial continues to adapt and improve with the times, while maintaining its core values – Integrity, Teamwork, Commitment, Proficiency and Quality, and Safety and Environment. The bunker industry is a highly competitive one, and it is our intention to keep our competitive edge and remain relevant. This means that we have had to step out of our comfort zone and embrace the two mega trends of our time – digitalisation and decarbonisation.

We have been early adopters and developers of the electronic bunkering note as part of our own digital bunkering efforts. We have diversified our product offering to include low carbon marine fuels and are proud to be one of the pioneers for bunkering B100 biofuels earlier this year. This was made possible by the arrival of our IMO Type II chemical and oil bunker tankers. These same bunker tankers are also capable for carrying and delivering methanol. Equatorial has invested in an LNG bunkering vessel (LBV) newbuilding that is set to be delivered in Q3 2027. We are also involved in a study to develop low- or zero-carbon ammonia bunkering in Singapore.

These are exciting times.

Note: Choong Sheen Mao is amongst panellists featured in ‘Session Three: Bunker Sellers Panel’ at the IBIA Annual Convention 2025.

Join the Conversation

With over 300 delegates expected, the IBIA Annual Convention 2025 is set to be a defining moment for the marine fuels industry. Registration is now open via the IBIA Annual Convention website.

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 31 October 2025

Continue Reading

Trending