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
‘The entire bunker fuels demand of over 5 million b/d would effectively cease to exist [in the long term].’
Bunker fuel in Singapore is experiencing an emerging dual pricing system as contamination concerns spread throughout Asia-Pacific.
Authority noted an increasing variety of bunker fuels becoming available in the marine fuels market in 2022; with the introduction of methanol bunkering this year.
The trailing suction hopper dredger will be commissioned and put into operation in the coming weeks.
LNG is a cleaner energy alternative to petroleum products and enables shipowners to comply with increasingly stringent standards for pollutant emissions, says Énergir.
New Houston office to grow Monjasa’s presence in the US Gulf will be supported by Trading Director Americas, Kelsey Ware, and Trader, Thomas Cirillo.
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.
‘MPA had immediately contacted the relevant bunker suppliers to take necessary steps to ensure that the relevant batch of fuel was no longer supplied. Further investigations are currently on-going,’ it informs.
