Connect with us

Business

Pacific Green: Why gas scrubbers continue to be the future of marine emissions control

A study by independent Norwegian research group SINTEF confirmed burning HSFO with a scrubber has a lower carbon footprint than using LSFO.

Admin

Published

on

scrubber ECGSA

Scrubber technology firm Pacific Green Technologies (PGT) on Monday (22 June) published an article supporting the relevance of scrubbers in reducing emissions from the shipping industry while clarifying popular misconceptions of burning HSFO: 

The coronavirus pandemic has been a huge global tragedy. It’s also smashed the economies of many nations and laid waste to whole sectors of industry. It’s one of those once-in-a-lifetime occurrences that you wish hadn’t happened in your time on the planet.

One of the sectors that has been most notably hit hard is the oil sector. As the pandemic took hold, as all forms of transport were paralysed by the crisis, global oil demand collapsed by more than 16 million barrels a day.

Simultaneously, a production war between Saudi Arabia and Russia saw oil supplies surge – it was a catastrophic cocktail that sent oil market prices into a tailspin. For brief periods in April, some oil futures were trading in the negative.

Dated Brent, the benchmark used to price more than two-thirds of the world’s oil, is now back to over $42/b (as of June 21) after hitting a 21-year low in April. Some market participants expect it to nudge towards $45/b in the short-term and higher still as the year progresses.

This will be good news for those shipowners who have installed marine gas scrubbers, as a rise in oil prices will likely be reflected in the spread between high sulphur fuel oil and low sulphur fuel oil, a spread which has been, at its height, over $300 but is now hovering around the $50-$55 mark.

As the spread widens, so scrubbers become more attractive

Most shipowners believe that the spread will increase again, after all, LSFO requires blending of distillates, which, in comparison to HSFO, are expensive and will become more so as the oil price rises. LSFO fuel is a much higher quality fuel, creating a premium in price.

And, as the spread widens, so scrubbers become more attractive, not just as a way to meet the new sulphur emission standards established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in January, but as a way to save substantial amounts of money.

It’s not as if there is any chance that HSFO will simply disappear.

Even if newly-built refineries don’t produce HSFO in the medium-to-short-term, the vast majority of refineries are not being upgraded to exploit the extra levels of refining and consequently abandon HSFO. The investment required is vast and many refineries cannot afford the investment, especially now.

Many of those who had planned to upgrade their refineries have postponed or delayed those upgrades since the start of the crisis, so HSFO will be relatively plentiful in supply for the foreseeable future.

It’s not just about the money

On price alone then, over the coming years, a scrubber will likely be seen as a wise investment.

But it’s not just about money. One thread of debate since the virus emptied the skies and seas, thereby reducing emissions, has been that we need to take more rapid action on climate heating.

The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) new emissions regulations, which took effect on 1 January 2020, and were aimed at reducing the sulphur content of ships’ fuel oil from 3.50% m/m. to 0.50% m/m, already sought to reposition the maritime industry as a partner in positive environmental and social change.

In meeting the requirements of IMO 2020, shipowners had – and still have – three primary alternatives available: use <0.5% low-sulphur fuel oil (LSFO), install a marine scrubber, which allows continued use of high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO), or switch fuel type entirely to liquefied natural gas.

The industry debate about which is the best compliance solution has become increasingly polarised. And, as is often the case in such situations, many of the arguments have become absurdly oversimplified and reductionist.

Fitting a scrubber, so the story goes, is just for shipowners who want to save a buck. Switching to LSFO is for those owners who care about supporting the IMO’s plans for a healthier environment.

This is an alarmingly unsophisticated view.

A study published last year by independent Norwegian research organisation SINTEF confirmed that burning high-sulphur fuel oil with a scrubber has a lower carbon footprint than using LSFO.

To understand LSFO’s true carbon footprint, you have to assess the fuel’s full lifecycle.

Measuring the ecological cost of LSFO cannot be limited to the narrow view of its use at sea.

According to SINTEF’s chief scientist Dr Elizabeth Lindstad, the energy required in the global production of LSFO produces far more greenhouse gas (GHG) than in the production of HSFO.

The difference is also compounded by scale.

With so many ships using LSFO as their IMO 2020 compliance solution, the supply of LSFO has had to climb drastically to meet demand.

With more distillate fuel production will come more GHG production.

In her report, Dr Lindstad concludes that, measured from well to wake, using HSFO with an exhaust gas scrubber is the most environmentally beneficial way of complying with IMO 2020.

Research submitted earlier this year to the IMO by Germany and Finland also confirmed that the overall effect of burning LSFO is environmentally negative.

LSFO is a dirtier fuel than HSFO used with a scrubber

Very low sulphur fuel oil was specifically developed recently to create a fuel that would comply with the IMO’s 2020 sulphur requirements. It has not had widespread use for a prolonged period of time and it is not fully understood.

The Finnish/German research describes the results from controlled burnings of various marine fuels – their research shows that blended LSFO showed a significant increase in black carbon emissions.

Second only to CO2 in terms of the maritime industry’s contribution to climate change, black carbon is a dangerous greenhouse gas.

It is responsible for 7% to 21% of shipping’s overall GHG equivalent impact. LSFO, therefore, is a dirtier fuel than HSFO used with a scrubber.

For many, such findings are counterintuitive and can therefore be dismissed. But this is a nuanced debate, and the science favours scrubbers.

The operational and engineering risks of switching to LSFO are significant

And, even then, it’s not just about price and environmental concerns.

Worryingly little attention seems to have been paid to the operational and engineering risks of switching to LSFO.

Many shipowners have been unprepared for the technical difficulties of suddenly running a ship on a different fuel.

Low and high sulphur fuels are not interchangeable. Fuel management on vessels has to ensure that high sulphur fuel is not mixed with low sulphur fuel – you can’t just switch between the two.

More significantly, LSFO fuels can vary a lot between batches.

Each batch can have different burning characteristics and LSFO can very quickly damage an engine if not handled correctly.

LSFO fuels are blended products – storing these fuels on board requires much more preparation and skill. Transitioning from one batch of oil to the next becomes a guessing game in which the booby prize is an inoperative ship.

HSFO and LSFO also differ significantly in terms of viscosity, with residual fuel and MGO, for example, exhibiting a density difference of approximately 8%.

HSFO-capable engine equipment generally requires a relatively high fuel viscosity, 10-20 centistokes (cSt). Low sulphur distillate fuels have a much lower viscosity, usually within 2-11 cSt.

If viscosity is too low, the moving components of the injection equipment will lack sufficient lubrication. The resulting damage could include fuel pump seizures and increased leakage in fuel pumps, engine-mounted pumps, and fuel handling pumps.

Viscosity and lubricity are closely connected. Sulphur is used to increase the lubricity of fuel; low sulphur fuels could provide ship’s engines with insufficient lubrication for components such as the pump plunger.

However, the opposite problem is also a risk – compensating with over-lubrication is a regular and damaging occurrence.

These operational worries were borne out in February this year, when Muhammad Usman, product manager at construction engineering firm Lloyd’s Register, told delegates at a marine conference that port inspections have found a multitude of problems with vessels caused by the switch to LSFO.

“Issues found have been increased wear of engine cylinder components; unstable combustion; increased sludge issue at purifiers and fuel solidifying in the tank, particularly at cold climates,” said Usman.

And just last week at a marine webinar hosted by price reporting agency S&P Global Platts, it was suggested that Europe was emerging as a global hotspot for quality issues with the new very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) blends.

Scrubbers offer shipowners full fuel flexibility and eliminate concerns about fuel compatibility

“The biggest problems we have with fuel quality are in the ARA area,” one delegate said during the webinar.

“We see different types of problems, such as total sediment potential, even a little bit of sulphur out of spec, a variety of hiccups. I’m a little bit surprised that the market doesn’t seem to be able to get this right yet.”

In contrast, scrubbers offer shipowners full fuel flexibility and eliminate concerns of new blended fuel qualities and compatibility issues.

And, rather than causing problems to the inner workings of ships’ engines, scrubbers can be fitted to newbuilds or retrofitted to almost any engine.

Scrubbers are also a hedge against the further tightening of emissions regulations. For instance, not only is PGMT’s ENVI-Marine™ system smaller, more efficient, cheaper to install and costs around 20% less to run than the competitions’ product but it delivers marine scrubbing efficiency equivalent to an astonishing 0.0047% sulphur fuel.

And each iteration is aimed to make the device more scalable and easier to build, while constantly improving the scrubbing efficiency – this is technology that will meet emissions targets for many years to come.

Scrubbers make more economic, environmental and operational sense than any other solution to the IMO 2020 conundrum. Even in these difficult times, marine gas scrubbers are still the future.


Photo credit: EGCSA

Published: 25 June, 2020

 

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: Liquidators of Nan Ho Maritime, Nan Xin Maritime issue notices of dividend

Nan Ho Maritime’s second interim dividend and Nan Xin Maritime’s second and final dividend are payable from 4 September, according to Government Gazette notices.

Admin

Published

on

By

Resized benjamin child

Notices of dividend for Nan Ho Maritime Pte Ltd and Nan Xin Maritime Pte Ltd, which are currently in creditors’ voluntary liquidation, were published on the Government Gazette on Friday (4 September). 

The following are the details of the notice for Nan Ho Maritime:

Name of Company : Nan Ho Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No. : 200814315C
Address of Former Registered Office : 21 Bukit Batok Crescent, #22-70 WCEGA Tower, Singapore 658065
Amount per centum : 2.305 per centum of all admitted ordinary claims
First and Final or otherwise : Second interim dividend
When Payable : 4 September 2026 onwards
Where Payable : c/o AAG Corporate Advisory Pte. Ltd., 11 Collyer Quay, #07-02 The Arcade, Singapore 049317

The following are the details of the notice for Nan Xin Maritime:

Name of Company : Nan Xin Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No. : 201701966W
Address of Former Registered Office : 21 Bukit Batok Crescent, #22-70 WCEGA Tower, Singapore 658065
Amount per centum : 3.980 per centum of all admitted ordinary claims
First and Final or otherwise : Second and final dividend
When Payable : 4th day of September 2026 onwards
Where Payable : c/o AAG Corporate Advisory Pte. Ltd., 11 Collyer Quay, #07-02 The Arcade, Singapore 049317

 

Photo credit: Benjamin Child
Published: 7 September, 2026

Continue Reading

LNG Bunkering

Singapore-based EPS takes delivery of three LNG dual-fuel bulk carriers

Three vessels are the third, fourth and fifth in the company’s series of 14 Newcastlemaxes being built at the yard, and were delivered five months ahead of their contracted delivery dates.

Admin

Published

on

By

35

Singapore-based Eastern Pacific Shipping (EPS) on Friday (4 September) announced the naming and delivery of three new LNG dual-fuel Newcastlemax bulk carriers from China’s Qingdao Beihai Shipbuilding. 

Cyril Ducau, CEO of EPS, said the vessels were named Mount Victoria, Mount Yulong and Mount Wuyi

The three vessels are the third, fourth and fifth in the company’s series of 14 Newcastlemaxes being built at the yard, and were delivered five months ahead of their contracted delivery dates.

“A big thank you to CSSC Group and Qingdao Beihai Shipbuilding, working alongside our EPS team, for the tremendous collaboration and commitment behind this achievement,” Ducau said in a social media post.  

 

Photo credit: Eastern Pacific Shipping
Published: 7 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Port & Regulatory

ISWG-GHG 22: IMO working group aims to present NZF text at MEPC 85

The Chair expressed his observation of a genuine willingness within the Group to make concrete further progress at the next ISWG-GHG meeting and work towards presenting text to MEPC 85.

Admin

Published

on

By

IMO

The Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 22) met for its 22nd meeting from 1 to 4 September 2026, chaired by Mr. Sveinung Oftedal (Norway), according to the International Maritime Organization on Friday (4 September). 

According to a meeting summary by IMO, the meeting had a high level of participation, with nearly 1200 registered participants, in person and online.

During the meeting participants considered the following agenda items:

Consideration of proposals, including documents submitted to MEPC 84 and 85, previous sessions of ISWG-GHG, as well as documents submitted to ISWG-GHG 22, on how to address concerns with the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI on the Net-Zero Framework, in line with the 2023 IMO GHG Strategy

Following constructive discussions, the Chair expressed his observation of a genuine willingness within the Group to make concrete further progress at the next ISWG-GHG meeting and work towards presenting text to MEPC 85 that adequately addresses the noted progress made in the consideration of proposals on how to address concerns raised regarding the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI on the mid-term measure.

The Group invited interested delegations to continue to consult intersessionally to address remaining concerns with the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, in line with the 2023 IMO GHG Strategy, taking into account views expressed at the Group’s session, with a view to submitting concrete proposals reflecting enhanced convergence allowing timely adoption and effective implementation.

Further consideration of the draft guidelines supporting the uniform and effective implementation of IMO’s mid-term measures.

The Group held a preliminary exchange of views on this agenda item, although time became a limiting factor and the Group and agreed to defer the consideration of all documents submitted to this session under this agenda item to ISWG-GHG 23 (23-27 November 2026).

Further consideration of the development of the IMO Life Cycle GHG Assessment (LCA) framework.

Due to time constraints, the Group was not able to consider the agenda item related to the IMO Life Cycle GHG Assessment (LCA) framework. The Group deferred the consideration of those documents to ISWG-GHG 23, in conjunction with the report of the fourth meeting of the GESAMP-LCA Working Group expected to be submitted to MEPC 85.

Next steps

The next meeting of the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 23) is scheduled for 23 to 27 November 2026, ahead of MEPC 85 (30 November to 3 December).

The second extraordinary session of MEPC (adjourned last October) is scheduled to resume on 4 December, subject to discussions at MEPC 85.

 

Photo credit: International Maritime Organization
Published: 7 September, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending