The Port of Rotterdam on Thursday (24 march) said it has commissioned CE Delft to investigate the proposed extension of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to the maritime sector and the subsequent impact on the competitive position of seaports.
According to the port, the extension of the ETS to shipping must take into account potential evasive behaviour and its impact on the competitive position of EU seaports compared to non-EU ports.
Extension of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to the maritime sector
With its proposal to revise the EU ETS, the European Commission aims to include shipping in the European carbon emissions trading scheme.
Based on the proposal, CE Delft has investigated the cost-benefit analysis for five scenarios of potential port evasion.
These scenarios include for example adding an extra port from outside the EU to the trading route, or sailing to a neighbouring non-EU seaport instead of directly to an EU seaport. The cost-benefit analysis is based on a various costs, e.g. fuel costs and port call costs, including the ETS price based on a low/average/high estimate.
The study demonstrates that when an extra port such as Felixstowe (United Kingdom) is added on the China-Europe route, there are potentially 18 scenarios in which port evasion can be cost-efficient for ships. This is already the case with an average ETS price of €67. In case of a port shift from Algeciras (Spain) to Tangier (Morocco), the evasion of the EU ETS is profitable in 27 of the 36 scenarios that were studied.
CE Delft concludes that evasive behaviour is realistic, even when the ETS price is relatively low (compared to the extra costs of a port call, fuel costs, operational costs, etc.).
However, this does not apply to all shipping lines. For example, operational challenges (i.e. capacity constraints) in non-EU ports also plays a role in limiting possibilities to evade the EU ETS, at least in the short term. In the report a number of ways to limit evasive behaviour is also included.
The Port of Rotterdam is asking European policymakers to conduct a broad impact assessment into the effects of a shipping ETS on European ports before including shipping in the EU ETS. Only if shipping actually pays for the pollution it causes, more sustainable shipping can be achieved.
Photo credit: CE Delft
Published: 28 March, 2022
Maersk, CMA CGM, BP and Stena Bulk give insights on availability of the three potential bunker fuel types, their plans, transition from fuel oil and LNG to alt fuels, how important sustainable marine fuels are to shipowners and more.
Some 150 mt of bonded light marine diesel oil was delivered to the Panama-flagged vessel in less than two hours, says Cheng Jing, Executive Deputy General Manager.
Creditors will need to produce proofs of debt to liquidator of Singapore-based Daichi Shipmanagement by Friday (18 November 2022), according to latest notice.
Vessel to be equipped with LPG Reformer, which can convert LPG into synthetic methane gas- making it more stable by reducing the rate of abnormal combustions.
‘It is undisputed that Sing Fuels furnished fuel in Port Elizabeth that enabled the M/V Lila Shanghai to continue on its way […] and it is undisputed that Sing Fuels was never paid for this fuel,’ states Judge.
Plans to acquire a stake in the Rotterdam-based international marine fuel testing and advisory firm from existing investor, IK Investment Partners.
KPI OC seeking to recover debt of USD 805,602.15 over five bunker deliveries, not including accrued interest of about USD 363,000 since 15 September, showed court documents obtained by Manifold Times.
Discussions around the need to develop methanol bunkering operations are taking place at numerous ports ahead of estimated demand of above 7M mtpa by 2030, says Chris Chatterton of Methanol Institute.
‘Economics of the shipping market will be the key driver enabling methanol to be adopted at a higher pace going forth over next couple years as market begins to return to more normal rates,’ states COO.
Integr8 Fuel injunction varied by Singapore Court to allow former employees to start work at Hartree Group in December 2022 following failure to produce evidence on biofuels development plans.
Variability of sources can affect the stability and performance of biofuel bunkers produced from these feedstocks, in turn leading to difficulties in meeting regulations and industry standards, shares Bryan Quek.
Top three positive movers in 2022 were Bunker House Petroleum Pte Ltd (+7), Eastpoint International Marketing Pte Ltd (+5), and Eng Hua Company (Pte) Ltd (+6); newcomer Sinopec Fuel Oil (Singapore) gets 19th spot.
