Connect with us

Analysis

Clyde & Co: EU Proposals to include Shipping in the Emissions Trading Scheme – what do we know?

The EU Commission on 14 July, 2021 proposed legislation to amend the European Union Emissions Trading Schemeto include shipping emissions.

Admin

Published

on

CHUTTERSNAP

International law firm Clyde & Co LLP on Tuesday (30 November) published an insight focusing on the EU proposal to include shipping in the emission trading scheme.

On 14 July 2021, the EU Commission proposed legislation to amend the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) to include shipping emissions (the Proposal). In this article, we will consider what is known about the scheme and how it is expected to function in practice.

Who will be responsible for compliance with the new scheme?

The most likely position is that the party responsible for compliance with other international schemes like the MRV Regulation and the ISM Code will also be the one responsible for compliance with the EU ETS regime.

More specifically, under the Proposal, the person or organisation which is responsible for compliance with EU ETS will be the “shipping company”, which is defined as“the shipowner or any other organisation or person, such as the manager or the bareboat charterer, that has assumed the responsibility for the operation of the ship from the shipowner and that, on assuming such responsibility, has agreed to take over all the duties and responsibilities imposed by the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 336/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council.”

What about time charters?

Under time charters, the “shipping company” may not necessarily be the one who is responsible for crucial operational decisions regarding emissions. 

The EU Commission has anticipated that owners and charterers may wish to account for this in their charterparties, saying:

“In line with the polluter pays principle, the shipping company could, by means of a contractual arrangement, hold the entity that is directly responsible for the decisions affecting the CO2 emissions of the ship accountable for the compliance costs under this Directive. This entity would normally be the entity that is responsible for the choice of fuel, route and speed of the ship.”

It remains to be seen how parties will account for this in practice – arguably both the owner and the time charterer have significant influence over the overall emissions profile of the vessel.

In the meantime, the European Community of Shipowners’ Associations (“ECSA”) has been considering the effect on the industry and how the Proposal might be amended to remove uncertainty about which party should pay. On 2 November 2021, ECSA produced a policy paper which proposed, among other things:

  1. The introduction of a dedicated Maritime Climate Fund intended to stabilise the (currently volatile) carbon price and support the energy transition of maritime sector.
  2. Making the “commercial operator” (in many cases, the time charterer) rather than the “shipping company” responsible for ETS compliance; or, alternatively
  3. Introducing a binding public law requirement that ETS costs be “passed through” from shipping companies to commercial operators.

It remains to be seen whether these proposals will be considered by the EU, or whether there is popular support for them within the wider industry.

What about spot charters/freight rates?

It is inevitable that the costs of buying allowances will have a knock-on effect on freight rates and add volatility to an already volatile market. The European Energy Exchange (“EEX”) has identified this as an issue and has responded by creating the EEX Zero Carbon Freight Index, which is intended to give traders an idea of how the cost of carbon emissions could affect freight prices.

What will shipping companies have to do?

Monitoring, reporting and verification

Shipping companies will be required to put in place systems to monitor and report their emissions, which must be approved and then verified by an administering authority (about which, see below). As mentioned above, most shipping companies to be covered by EU ETS will already be subject to the MRV Regulation and should thus have these systems in place. 

The Proposal suggests that the intention is supplement the MRV Regulation obligations to ensure that all the necessary data is captured, rather than to introduce entirely new systems.

Surrender of carbon allowances

At the end of a reporting period, the shipping companies will then be required surrender allowances (often colloquially known as ‘carbon credits’) in respect of their aggregated emissions for all of the applicable voyages during the period. There do not appear to be any plans to allow allocation of “free allowances” to shipping companies, so they will have to purchase all of the allowances that they need, either at auction or on the open market via exchanges like EEX or ICE.

How much will it cost?

The Commission anticipates that the new scheme will capture emissions of about 90 million tons of Co2 (or equivalent) a year. At the current market price of ~EUR 55 per ton of Co2, this would require shipping companies to surrender total allowances in the order of EUR 5 billion per year.

However, the main concern for shipping companies will be carbon price uncertainty: from Oct-20 to Oct-21, for instance, the carbon price jumped between EUR 24 and EUR 62.

Ultimately, if enacted, the shipping emissions scheme will be phased in (see below), so costs will not reach these levels until reporting year 2026.

What penalties are there for non-compliance?

If shipping companies fail to comply with their obligations to monitor, report and verify emissions, and then surrender allowances, they can be fined.

In extremis, if a company fails to comply with surrender requirements for two or more consecutive reporting periods, then the EU can issue an “expulsion order” with the result that no EU port will allow the shipping company’s vessels to enter and the vessel may even be arrested by its flag state, if that state is an EU member.

What voyages does the Proposal cover?

Shipping companies will need to purchase allowances to cover:

  1. 100% of emissions for intra-EU voyages; and
  2. 50% of emissions for voyages beginning or ending at EU ports.

Who will monitor and enforce the new ETS regime?

The EU ETS regime will be monitored and enforced by all of the EU member states, and each shipping company will be assigned an “administering authority” by which it is specifically supervised. If the shipping company is registered to an EU member state, then its administering authority will be that that member state. In most other cases the administering authority will be the member state at which the shipping company has made the most port calls in the preceding two years.

From 2024, the EU Commission will publish and regularly update the list of shipping companies and their respective administering authorities.

In practical terms it is expected that administering authorities will request the assistance of the European Maritime Safety Agency “EMSA” to carry out their obligations regarding approval of monitoring plans and verification of emissions, in line with its current work in doing so for the MRV Regulation.

How will the scheme be phased in?

The Commission proposes to phase in the requirement to purchase and surrender allowances over a four-year period, so that shipping companies must purchase allowances as follows:

  • 20 % of verified emissions reported for 2023
  • 45 % of verified emissions reported for 2024
  • 70 % of verified emissions reported for 2025
  • 100 % of verified emissions reported for 2026 and each year thereafter.

The IMO is creating similar provisions globally, like Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (“EEXI”) and the Carbon Intensity Indicator (“CII”). Surely this is going to doubly affect shipping companies?

The EU Commission have identified this potential problem and in response they have included a review clause aimed at considering the effect of EU ETS in combination to the global measures taken by the IMO.

In the meantime, the industry will have to watch these schemes as they develop to understand if and how they interact with each other in practice.

 

Source: Clyde & Co LLP
Photo credit: CHUTTERSNAP from Unsplash
Published: 1 December, 2021

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Alkagesta highlights key insights on European choke point pressures in August

Update covers dual supply crisis currently shaping global bunker markets — a stalled Strait of Hormuz peace process and Rhine water levels at a 140-year record low — and the implications for Singapore.

Admin

Published

on

By

Alkagesta

Malta-based global commodity trading house Alkagesta recently shared latest market insight examining the dual supply crisis gripping global energy markets as diplomatic efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz stall and Rhine water levels fall to record lows, creating what the company describes as a “state of emergency” for European inland fuel distribution.

In an article published on Alkagesta Market Insights on 11 August, the company’s trading and market intelligence teams outlined how the convergence of two simultaneous logistical crises is tightening prompt fuel availability across Singapore, Northwest Europe, and the Mediterranean:

Strait of Hormuz transits fell to a near-one-month low of 13 ships on August 9 following an attack on an ADNOC-linked tanker, as both the US and Iran demand war reparations before any reopening agreement can be reached. Simultaneously, Rhine water levels at the Kaub chokepoint fell to 16 cm on August 10 — the lowest since records began in 1880 — with forecasts pointing to a further drop to just 4 cm by August 14, effectively halting barge traffic and trapping fuel oil stocks at the ARA hub.

The supply picture across both key hubs has deteriorated sharply. In Singapore, Middle Eastern fuel oil imports nearly tripled week-over-week to 328,878 mt by July 29 — the highest volume since March — providing some relief as onshore commercial heavy distillate stocks rose to a five-week high of 19.58 million barrels by August 5. However, July bunker fuel sales are estimated to have fallen 3.7% month-over-month to 4.44 million mt, with elevated premiums redirecting prompt demand toward alternative ports including Zhoushan and Port Klang.

In Europe, the VLSFO market remains acutely undersupplied as refiners continue to prioritize high-margin diesel over low-sulfur blending components, while the Rhine crisis has forced barges to operate at just 15–20% of normal capacity — with freight rates from Rotterdam to Karlsruhe rising more than 400% in two months.

Alkagesta’s strategic outlook points to a potential total breakdown in Rhine-linked inland distribution by mid-August, a VLSFO Hi-5 spread likely to remain above $200/mt through Q3, and a global crude market that analysts warn requires an additional 2.1 million b/d for 18 months to rebuild depleted inventories.

Note: The full article can be read here.

 

Photo credit: Alkagesta
Published: 17 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Integr8 Fuels: Why bunker markets could be lower than we thought

Marine fuel prices could prove lower than previously anticipated as easing refinery margins and improving bunker market fundamentals outweigh a still-uncertain crude oil outlook, says Integr8 Fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

6 5

By Steve Christy, Expert Contributor, Integr8 Fuels

29 July 2026

We have just seen one false dawn, is there another to come? 

Last month, we wrote about how close we were to the expected lows in Brent and Rotterdam bunker prices, but not yet Singapore. Given what has happened since, a month is not only a long time in politics, but also a very long time in the bunker market. 

There was a resumption of attacks in the Arabian Gulf region on 13 July, followed by targeted Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea oil infrastructure and shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb region, the gateway between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. As a result, Brent futures fell to lows of around $70/bbl in late June and early July before surging to a high of $100/bbl on 23 July. Over the same period, Singapore VLSFO fell to $635/mt before climbing to $865/mt, a swing of $230/mt in just 16 days. 

Jul 2026 Graph 01 1024x613 1

Prices at the start of this week fell sharply after a halt in Arabian Gulf attacks over the weekend, with front month Brent was down to intra-day lows of $84/bbl, and Singapore VLSFO $750/mt.  However, at the time of writing there has been a ‘surprise’ attack by Iran, and retaliatory action by the US, with prices rising again.  It looks like we could be at another false dawn. 

The obvious questions are: will there be a return to peace negotiations, and are we close to the end of the war and free-flowing traffic through the strait of Hormuz (and also the Bab el-Mandeb)? The obvious answer is, we don’t know; there are only a few people that are likely to know the answer to this. All we can do is plan for every eventuality. 

Low stocks, higher bunker prices, and a strong Singapore VLSFO premium: it’s a challenge 

For those of us in the bunker market, the point we made last month about Singapore VLSFO trading at a strong premium to crude still holds, albeit slightly less pronounced. The loss of supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, together with the added uncertainty surrounding Saudi product exports from the Jizan and Rabigh refineries on the Red Sea, has sustained this premium. 

These developments are likely to keep the Singapore VLSFO premium to crude at elevated levels until there is greater confidence that Middle East crude and product supplies are returning to more normal trading patterns. Amid all the price volatility, this Singapore VLSFO premium remains a key indicator to watch. 

Backwardation in Brent futures illustrates market psychology 

One month ago, backwardation in Brent futures (front month minus second month) had fallen from $7/bbl to virtually nothing, reflecting the market’s belief that an end to the war was little more than a negotiating step away. It wasn’t. The resumption of attacks, coupled with Houthi involvement in the Red Sea, sent prices sharply higher again, with backwardation in the Brent futures market returning to almost $6/bbl. 

Jul 2026 Graph 02 1024x572 1

The halt in attacks over the past weekend has taken steam out of the market, with prices and backwardation falling sharply. Where we go from here depends if there is again a belief peace is on the horizon, or if this is another false dawn. The past month highlights how impossible it is to predict an ending to the war, and how fragile any expectations of peace can be. 

We cannot ignore the price, but still must look to the future

It is impossible to write a report and not highlight the turmoil of the current market and what is happening. However, we still must look beyond this, to see where we could end up. 

In an earlier report, we suggested the run-up to the US mid-term elections in November may be a backstop to the war. However, even this is not guaranteed. There are many dynamic elements to the economy and voter intentions, but one feature that will always crop up in the US is the gasoline price. This has risen from $3/gallon before the war to over $4/gallon for the past four months. 

Jul 2026 Graph 03 1024x570 1

If it comes to it, will Republican voters want to see a resolution to the war and a return to $3 gasoline prices ahead of the elections? 

We have a change of heart on how low bunker prices can go

We don’t know exact timings, but in any planning, we must look at what happens when the war does finally end and prices fall, whenever that may be. In past reports we have highlighted the view that Brent crude prices are unlikely to fall back to pre-war levels in the $60s, and Singapore VLSFO unlikely to go back in to the $400s. This may be the point at which these views change.

Previous thinking was based on a relatively short war, where there would be a large loss of oil supply and a massive stock-draw. In this case, tighter stock levels would be sufficient to keep prices higher than their pre-war levels once we returned to ‘normality’. This would mean Brent futures in the $70s (and not in the $60s), and Singapore VLSFO in the $500s, and not the $400s.

A number of mainstream analysts also held this view, although there were some that were lower and some higher.

Given the war has already gone on for much longer than almost everyone expected, this thinking must change. Yes, global stocks have been drawn down at a rapid rate, but this is slowing. Higher pricing and inflationary blows have had a major impact on global oil demand, with current indications that total oil demand in the second quarter of this year was some 4 million b/d lower than year earlier levels.

The graph below shows this sharp drop in demand and even if the war comes to an end relatively soon, and demand gets back towards some normality, a structural loss of more than 1 million b/d in global oil demand is still expected to have taken place because of the extended period of conflict.

If the war goes on for even longer, structural losses in global oil demand are likely to be even greater.

Jul 2026 Graph 04 1024x579 1

Source: US EIA

It’s a hard road, but we can get there

This means that once the war does end, market psychology will be looking at a rapid increase in oil supplies going into a global market which is much lower in demand.  This opens the way for prices to easily return to their pre-war levels of Brent in the $60s and Singapore VLSFO in the $400s. 

Now we just need those at the centre of negotiations to get us there.

 

Photo credit and source: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 30 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

FOBAS report warns of growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

LR’s latest FOBAS Fuel Quality Report reveals that the biggest fuel quality risks are no longer confined to off-specification fuels, with some compliant fuels creating operational challenges.

Admin

Published

on

By

New FOBAS report warns growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

Classification society Lloyd’s Register (LR) on Tuesday (14 July) warned that ship operators are facing a growing risk from fuels that appear compliant under routine ISO 8217 testing but still present operational risks once onboard.

According to LR’s latest Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) Fuel Quality Report, covering the first half of 2026, off-specification fuels remain a persistent challenge. 

However, some of the most disruptive cases now involve fuels that pass routine compliance testing but show poor stability or compatibility, or contain non-conventional blend components that are only identified through more detailed investigative analysis.

Several incidents investigated highlighted this trend. In March and April, a number of vessels reported operational difficulties after bunkering fuel in a major bunkering hub. Further forensic analysis found that many of the fuels contained elevated concentrations of Estonian shale oil, in some cases estimated to be around 10-15%.

While shale oil is recognised within ISO 8217 as an acceptable blend component, FOBAS investigations found that higher concentrations can be associated with fuel instability and operational issues affecting filters, separators and fuel pumps.

The report also shows that fuel quality variability remains stubbornly high. Off-specification cases remained elevated throughout the first six months of 2026, suggesting that quality issues are no longer isolated events but a more persistent feature of today’s marine fuel supply chain.

The most common recurring issues included sulphur exceedances, excessive water content, sediment and stability problems, elevated catalytic fines, sodium contamination and low flash point distillate fuels.

At the same time, biofuels (especially FAME blends) are continuing to grow without being a primary source of quality issues. Where issues occurred in blended fuels, they were generally associated with the conventional VLSFO component rather than the FAME fraction.

The report concluded that operators will need to adopt a more proactive approach to fuel management as marine fuels become more diverse and fuel quality risks become harder to identify through routine compliance testing alone.

Greater emphasis on fuel stability, compatibility and understanding fuel composition will be critical to reducing operational disruption and maintaining vessel performance.

Murray Kirkwood, Fuel Specialist Consultant, Lloyd’s Register, said: “The findings from our latest report show that fuel quality risk is evolving. The challenge is no longer simply identifying fuels that fail specification. Increasingly, operators are encountering fuels that meet the required limits but still create operational difficulties once they are stored, handled and used onboard.

“As fuel blending becomes more complex, the distinction that matters is increasingly not between on-spec and off-spec fuel, but between fuels that are operationally resilient and fuels that are operationally fragile. Understanding that difference is becoming essential for shipowners and operators.”

The latest findings reinforced FOBAS’ long-standing view that effective fuel management increasingly depends on understanding fuel behaviour rather than relying solely on pass-or-fail specification testing.

By combining routine fuel quality monitoring with forensic investigation of operational incidents, FOBAS provides shipowners with a clearer understanding of emerging fuel quality risks as the industry continues its transition to a more diverse and complex fuel landscape.

Note: The FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel Quality Report H1 2026 is available at FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel quality reports | LR

 

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 15 July, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending