The UK government’s Clean Air Strategy, which requires all major ports in England to develop air quality plans within the next year, did not seem to impress members of the British Ports Association (BPA).
“This is a tight deadline, but many major ports will already be taking action on air quality, monitoring the sources or producing plans of action,” says Mark Simmonds, Policy Manager at the BPA.
“We are pleased that government has recognised that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to this.
“Measuring the sources of emissions is always difficult and government should recognise that ports are often centres of major industry and logistics chains and do not usually have direct control over nearby emissions sources.”
The Clean Air Strategy states: “By May 2019, all major English ports should produce Air Quality Strategies setting out their plans to reduce emissions across the port estate including ship and shore activities. These plans will be reviewed periodically to establish if the measures implemented are effective or further government action is required.”
BPA notes it is disappointed that the strategy provides no evidence for its claim that international shipping emissions have a significant impact on air quality in the UK due to shipping lanes and engine operation while at UK ports.
It also finds the lack of credible evidence behind the strategy to be “concerning”.
“We have been engaging with government on air quality for some time but have still yet to see much credible evidence set in proper context,” it notes.
“The government have based some of their assumptions on shipping and port emissions on reports where the methodology has significant limitations, such as substantial guesswork around vessels’ fuel type and sulphur content and assumptions on vessels’ engines.
“There are also significant question marks around source apportionment in emission monitoring.”
Moving forward, BPA believes the strategy is a missed opportunity to support more coastal shipping around the UK.
“Ports and shipping are part of the solution, not the problem and it is disappointing that the government have missed the opportunity to promote shipping as the cleanest way to move freight,” says Simmonds.
“Ports handle 95% of the UK’s trade and moving freight by sea is still by far the most environmentally-friendly way to facilitate global trade – as well as ensuring our economy continues to function and our food and energy supplies are secure.
“In comparison with other transport modes shipping is an efficient and environmentally sustainable option. Utilising the UK’s hundreds of ports in supporting more coastal shipping has the potential to take thousands of lorries off of UK roads.
“The industry is keen to play its part and work with government on improving air quality but this must be done holistically and using credible evidence.”
Photo credit: British Ports Association
Published: 25 May, 2018
Cash of SGD 4.43 million and USD 243,100, and one piece of 100-gram gold-coloured bar recovered in safe belonging to Abdul Latif Bin Ibrahim kept at Extra Space warehouse storage facility, show court documents.
Program introduces periodic assessments, mass flow metering data analysis, and regular training for relevant key personnel to better handle the MFMS to ensure a high level of continuous operational competency.
U.S. Claims Register Summary recorded a total USD 833 million claim from a total 180 creditors against O.W. Bunker USA, according to the creditor list seen by Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times.
Glencore purchased fuel through Straits Pinnacle which contracted supply from Unicious Energy. Contaminated HSFO was loaded at Khor Fakkan port and shipped to a FSU in Tanjong Pelepas, Malaysia to be further blended.
Individuals were employees of surveying companies engaged by Shell to inspect the volume of oil loaded onto the vessels which Shell supplied oil to; they allegedly accepted bribes totalling at least USD 213,000.
MPA preliminary investigations revealed that the affected marine fuel was supplied by Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd who later sold part of the same cargo to PetroChina International (Singapore) Pte Ltd.