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.

Published

2 years ago

December 1, 2021

Admin

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:

The introduction of a dedicated Maritime Climate Fund intended to stabilise the (currently volatile) carbon price and support the energy transition of maritime sector.
Making the “commercial operator” (in many cases, the time charterer) rather than the “shipping company” responsible for ETS compliance; or, alternatively
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:

100% of emissions for intra-EU voyages; and
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

Bunker Fuel

Integr8 Fuels: Off spec issue with MGO equally likely to occur as with HSFO

In its Bunker Quality Trends Report Q3 2023, Integr8 highlighted that the industry is equally likely to face an off specification issue with MGO as with HSFO, with VLSFO being one third less likely.

Published

4 weeks ago

November 15, 2023

Admin

Integr8 Fuels, the bunker trading and brokerage arm of Navig8, on Tuesday (7 November) released its Bunker Quality Trends Report Q3 2023, analysing data from 120 million metric tons of supply, to reveal key trends relating to fuel quality and availability. An excerpt of the report is as follows:

Introduction: Challenges fueling change

As we come to the end of another year in the world of bunkers that seems to have passed with the blink of an eye, our minds shift towards the challenges on the horizon and how as an industry we need to embrace change to profit and succeed in the future.

This is the third Integr8 Fuels quality report covering the last six months of supplies globally where we again dissect and compare the likelihood of hidden losses and off specification issues across all commercial grades of bunkers and key ports.

Using ‘best in class’ available data from over 120 million metric tons (MT) of deliveries globally across 1,300 locations and from over 800 suppliers, we will also assess fuel quality trends using our own Integr8 Quality Index which scores the proximity (or otherwise) of individual parameters within each sample to the relevant table 1 or table 2 specification limits within ISO 8217.

Finally, given the context of the incoming changes we will consider some of the challenges that decarbonisation and verification of emissions will bring to the industry.

Part 1: Off specification frequencies

How likely are we to be faced with an off specification situation?

In the last 180 days, owners’ analysis available to Integr8 Fuels has highlighted that you are equally likely to have an off specification issue with marine gas oil (MGO) as with high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) with very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) being one third less likely (see figure 1).

What is the likelihood of receiving noncompliant or critically off spec bunkers?

It is always important to consider the context of the off specification incidents.

To do this it is essential to consider the likelihood of MARPOL Annex VI (sulphur) or SOLAS (flash point) infractions and the likelihood of critical off specification incidents such as cat fines, total sediment potential, used lubricating oils, sodium and ash content (high risk) against routine and easily rectifiable off specification issues classified “low risk” such as a high viscosity in HSFO.

The rule of thumb when comparing off specification incidents by grade is that the parameters targeted in any blending model are the most likely to be outside the specification.

For example, VLSFOs are targeted on sulphur, with the price difference for 50,000MT of fuel with a sulphur content of 0.49 compared to 0.45 possibly equating to hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s hardly surprising, therefore, that both VLSFO and MGO, both of which are blended to a sulphur target, have more prevalence of MARPOL Annex VI non-compliances at 0.5% and 0.1% respectively.

However, MARPOL Annex VI is not the only compliance issue - we cannot ignore the requirement for flash point being 60°C or above as demanded by SOLAS. Indeed, off specification flash point, particularly with LSMGO, may be an unintended consequence of pulling low sulphur automotive or inland grades into the bunker pool as identified later in this paper.

High risk off specification incidents, defined as the total of both compliance and high risk off specifications, are seen to be most prevalent in MGO followed by VLSFO and, finally, HSFO. In fact, if you strip out compliance off specification, incidents relating to total sediment potential (TSP), aluminium and silicon (Al+Si) etc. for residual grades are very low indeed.

That said, there are many nuances, from region to region, to port-to-port, and even supplier-to-supplier at the same location. It therefore remains essential to consider these when buying bunkers and we will address some of the challenges later in the paper.

Availability of products (September 2023)

Unsurprisingly, marine gas oil is the most available product (640 ports) given the ability to substitute and supply higher quality inland or automotive grades and logistical ease of supplying what are quite often small quantities.

VLSFO is also seen to be readily available across all continents but at 28% fewer ports (458

ports), this because of larger quantities being ordered and the storage and barge infrastructure to support these supplies in general.

High sulphur fuel oil is the only product which is not readily available, with only 231 ports listed as of September 2023 (see figure 2). HSFO availability is centered around bunkering hubs and geographically key areas likely to receive passing trade from VLCCs and / or other scrubber fitted sectors. It is important, therefore, to plan carefully for HSFO and consider the type of scrubber fitted to the vessel along with any local limitations in forthcoming voyages that may require a fuel switch to LSMGO, for example.

Biofuel blends

Data is now becoming available for tests of identified biofuels supplied globally and whilst this is still very small in comparison with conventional fuels, it is clear to see the apparent void stretching from Singapore to Europe currently present.

Moreover, we are not currently able to comment on the sustainability of the biofuels being supplied but can confidently predict that Indonesia fuels, for example, will likely be sourced from palm oil and would not satisfy a verifier of emissions. ARA, and in particular Rotterdam, is seen to be the epicenter of supply in Europe given the current subsidies available in the Netherlands. VLSFO blends are almost exclusively limited to bunker hubs.

Which specifications are being traded?

Even as we eagerly anticipate the new version of ISO 8217 hopefully expected in early 2024, we continue to work in the past when it comes to the specifications we buy and sell on a day-to-day basis.

The scale of the challenge can be laid bare by considering the charts below, (figures 4 and 5), which identify the split of residual and distillate ISO 8217 grades traded by product group in the last 180 days.

Residual Fuels

Just over one quarter of trades are guaranteed to the latest version of the specification (2017) which is virtually unchanged compared to previous figures.

Distillate Fuels

In the case of MGO, only 18% of fuels traded were sold as 2017 fuels in the last 180 days, slightly less than previous. A very slight reduction in 2005 fuels was noted from 11% to 9%, however it is worth remembering that this specification is nearly 19 years old.

Note: The full report of Integr8 Fuels’ Bunker Quality Trends Report Q3 2023 can be found here.

Photo credit: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 15 November 2023

Bunker Fuel

JLC China Bunker Market Monthly Report (October 2023)

Country tallied roughly 1.63 million mt of bonded bunker fuel sales in the month, with the daily sales down by 5.74% from September to 52,419 mt, JLC’s data shows.

Published

1 month ago

November 10, 2023

Admin

Beijing-based commodity market information provider JLC Network Technology Co. recently shared its JLC China Bunker monthly report for October 2023 with Manifold Times through an exclusive arrangement:

Bunker Fuel Demand

China’s bonded bunker fuel sales decrease in October

China’s bonded bunker fuel sales decreased further in October, because of tighter supply.

The country tallied roughly 1.63 million mt of bonded bunker fuel sales in the month, with the daily sales down by 5.74% from September to 52,419 mt, JLC’s data shows.

The sales by Chimbusco, Sinopec Zhoushan and SinoBunker slid to 520,000 mt, 580,000 mt and 70,000 mt in the month respectively, while those by China ChangJiang Bunker (Sinopec) stabilized at 35,000 mt. At the same time, enterprises with regional bunkering licenses sold about 420,000 mt of bonded bunker fuel, up from 388,300 mt in September.

China’s bonded bunker fuel sales continued to drop, as low-sulfur fuel oil supply tightened and prices stayed relatively high. Meanwhile, the barging capacity at certain ports was affected by bad weather, which also depressed the sales.

China’s bonded bunker fuel exports inch down in Jan-Sept

China’s bonded bunker fuel exports edged down in the first nine months of this year, mainly because of a decline in domestic low-sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) output.

The country exported about a total of 15.24 million mt of bonded bunker fuel in January-September, a dip of 0.66% from the same months in 2022, JLC estimated, with reference to data from the General Administration of Customs of PRC (GACC).

Among the exports were 14.44 million mt of heavy bunker fuel and 802,600 mt of light bunker fuel, which accounted for 94.73% and 5.27% of the total, respectively.

Regarding the exports by supplier, enterprises with national bunkering licenses exported about 12.15 million mt of bonded bunker fuel in the nine months, accounting for 79.69%, while those with regional bunkering licenses supplied about 3.10 million mt, accounting for 20.31%.

Chinese refiners reduced their bonded bunker fuel exports in the first three quarters of this year, as domestic supply decreased amid falling LSFO production. Refineries lowered their LSFO output in the period when their production enthusiasm was greatly depressed by less considerable margins. The country produced about 11.10 million mt of LSFO in January-September, a cut of 5.45% year on year, JLC’s data shows.

In September alone, China’s bonded bunker fuel exports settled at 1.58 million mt, down by 2.79% from the previous month and 21.13% from a year earlier. Heavy bunker fuel exports amounted to 1.47 million mt, accounting for 92.73% of the total, while light bunker fuel exports stood at 115,200 mt, occupying 7.27%.

Suppliers with national bunkering licenses tallied approximately 1.18 million mt in the month, accounting for 74.23% of the country’s total, with Sinopec Fuel Oil and Chimbusco taking 64.35%. At the same time, enterprises with regional licenses exported about 408,300 mt, accounting for 25.77%.

JLC China Bunker Market Monthly Report (October 2023)

Domestic-trade bunker fuel demand extends gains in October

Domestic-trade bunker fuel demand extended gains in October, because of post-holiday restocking.

Domestic-trade heavy bunker fuel demand settled at 400,000 mt in the month, rising by 40,000 mt or 12.12% month on month, JLC’s data shows. Some shipowners increased purchases after the holiday for the National Day, as they had run out of stockpiles. Meanwhile, high-sulfur fuel oil prices fell to a relatively low level, which also attracted buyers to make deals.

Domestic-trade light bunker fuel demand surged to 165,000 mt in October, growing by 25,000 mt or 19.23% from a month earlier, the data indicates. Downstream buyers showed higher buying interest when MGO prices rolled back. At the same time, shipping demand at inland ports increased, with coal transportation speeding up amid the heating season in North China.

Bunker Fuel Supply

China boosts its September bonded bunker fuel imports

China boosted its bonded bunker fuel imports month on month in September, as domestic low-sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) output decreased rapidly.

The country tallied about 389,800 mt of bonded bunker fuel imports in the month, surging by 27.18% month on month, JLC estimated, with reference to data from the General Administration of Customs of PRC (GACC).

Domestic refineries slowed down their LSFO production amid bad margins, leading refiners to import more bonded low-sulfur bunker fuel to meet demand. The country produced about 1.17 million mt of LSFO in the month, with the daily output dropping by 5.40% month on month to 39,000 mt, JLC’s data indicates. Meanwhile, some distributors expanded their bonded low-sulfur bunker fuel imports as more unit maintenance and export quota tightness triggered fears of a further decline in LSFO output in the fourth quarter.

Imports of high-sulfur bunker fuel and marine gas oil (MGO) largely stabilized at a normal level.

Russia surpassed Malaysia and became the largest supplier by shipping 214,000 mt of bonded bunker fuel to China, accounting for 54.9% of China’s total imports. Malaysia slipped to the second place with 61,800 mt, accounting for 15.9%, while Singapore ranked third with 60,900 mt, occupying 15.6%. Shipments from South Korea were reduced to only 53,100 mt, accounting for 13.6% and bringing the country to the fourth place.

On a year-on-year comparison, however, China’s bonded bunker fuel imports fell by 8.90%.

China’s bonded bunker fuel imports totaled 2.88 million mt in the first nine months of this year, plunging by 19.18% from the corresponding months in 2022, decelerating from a 20.58% slump in January-August.

Domestic-trade bunker fuel supply continues to grow in October

Domestic-trade bunker fuel supply continued to grow in October, as blenders boosted production when their blending margins for bunker fuel were widened by a drop in blendstock prices.

Chinese blenders supplied about 450,000 mt of domestic-trade heavy bunker fuel in the month, a boost of 60,000 mt or 16.22% month on month, JLC’s data indicates.

Similarly, refineries ramped up their light bunker fuel production amid relatively fair margins. Domestic-trade marine gas oil (MGO) supply rose to 180,000 mt in October, an uplift of 20,000 mt or 11.76% from September.

Bunker Prices, Profits

Editor
Yvette Luo
+86-020-38834382
[email protected]

Sales (Beijing)
Tony Tang
+86-10-84428863
[email protected]

Sales (Singapore)
Ginny Teo
+65-31571254
[email protected]
[email protected]

JLC Network Technology Co., Ltd is recognized as the leading information provider in China. We specialized in providing the transparent, high-value, authoritative market intelligence and professional analysis in commodity market. Our expertise covers oil, gas, coal, chemical, plastic, rubber, fertilizer and metal industry, etc.

JLC China Bunker Fuel Market Monthly Report is published by JLC Network Technology Co., Ltd every month on China bunker market, demand, supply, margin, freight index, forecast and so on. The report provides full-scale & concise insight into China bunker oil market.

Note: China-based commodity market information provider JLC Technology has been providing Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times China bunker volume data since 2020. Data from that period is available here.

Photo credit: JLC Network Technology
Published: 10 November, 2023

Analysis

DNV: Methanol-fuelled order trend continues, with first ammonia DF newbuilding contracts recorded in Oct

‘Finally, we have order confirmation on the first ocean going vessels with ammonia propulsion,’ exclaimed Martin Wold, Principal Consultant in DNV’s Maritime Advisory business.

Published

1 month ago

November 6, 2023

Admin

Latest figures from DNV’s Alternative Fuels Insight (AFI) platform in October saw six LNG-powered vessels added to the database. Additionally, the trend of increased orders for methanol-powered vessels continues, with 14 methanol-fuelled vessels ordered.

October also saw the first confirmed order for two ocean-going vessels equipped with ammonia dual fuel systems.

Following in the footsteps of the first orders that were made for LNG, methanol, and LPG powered vessels, the initial orders for ammonia-fuelled vessels are for ships designed to also transport the same fuel as cargo.

“Finally, we have order confirmation on the first ocean going vessels with ammonia propulsion. This simplifies the chicken and egg dilemma related to fuel availability versus demand,” exclaimed Martin Wold, Principal Consultant in DNV's Maritime Advisory business.

“It also addresses crew training, as crew will already be trained specifically on gas and ammonia carriers, so this does not become an extra burden or risk to manage.

“Furthermore, we see that the drivers for alternative fuels in general, and the push for ammonia as a fuel in particular, compared to what was the case in the early days for LNG and methanol respectively, are much stronger at this stage of the industry development.

“So, we will see orders for other ship types even before we get operational experience from gas carriers using ammonia as a fuel.”