Analysis

Infineum: Significant proportion of tanker fleet to be below minimum ‘C’ CII rating by 2030, without corrective action

Rob Ashton, Market Manager of Infineum, explains how Infineum B402 is a relatively easy way for a ship operator to positively influence a vessel’s CII rating while improving its bunker fuel consumption performance.

Published

3 years ago

October 3, 2022

Admin

In June 2021, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) held its 76th session (MEPC 76) and adopted measures including amendments to MARPOL Annex VI which requires ships 5,000 gross tonnage and above to establish an annual operational carbon intensity indicator (CII) and rating which scheme will be implemented on 1 November 2022 (with effect from 1 January 2023).

Ships will get a rating of their energy efficiency (A, B, C, D, E - where A is the best). The CII certification requirements are coming into effect from 1 January 2023; this means that the first annual reporting on carbon intensity will be completed in 2023, with the first rating given in 2024.

In an exclusive interview with Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times, Rob Ashton, Market Manager of international fuel additives company Infineum, shares more details on CII – a measurement of how efficiently a ship transports goods or passengers and is given in grams of CO2 emitted per cargo-carrying capacity and nautical mile – and provides tips on how shipowners can easily meet targets.

MT: How is the CII rating of A, B, C, D, E calculated?

The CII rating is calculated using a combination of actual vessel data (vessel type, DWT or GT, distance sailed, fuel consumption) coupled with several calculated variables and correction factors which yields a numerical value for a vessel’s attained CII vs a calculated Required CII (factoring in a 2% incremental CII reduction factor over the next four years).

The four rating boundaries for a ship can be determined numerically by multiplying the required CII with the dd vectors listed in the table below.

A theoretical worked example below assuming a constant attained CII vessel rating over a four-year period. Also shown is the same case, demonstrating additive benefit assuming a conservative 1% fuel consumption saving.

The Required CII values from the worked example above, when multiplied by the dd vectors yield the following boundary ratings. The A to E rating for a ship in a given year is then dependent on where the calculated attained CII for that ship falls within the numerical boundaries.

MT: Is it increasingly difficult for a shipowner to upgrade a vessel’s rating from ‘E’ to ‘A’? More importantly, meeting the minimum ‘C’ grade?

The fact that the CII contains a reduction factor year on year (currently set at 2% increments now through to 2026) means that maintaining current CII rating alone is challenging (let alone improvement) and consequently vessel operators will need to incorporate a continuous improvement plan to maintain/improve their CII through various means to improve vessel performance e.g. reducing drag, be that with hull coatings and design supported with a regular cleaning regime, propellor polishing, optimising power generation with supplementary battery hybridisation and waste heat recovery, operational factor improvement such as slow steaming and route selection. If no corrective action is taken a large proportion (70%) of tankers are anticipated to be below the minimum C rating by 2030! A relatively easy way for a ship operator to positively influence their CII rating is to incorporate Infineum’s combustion improver additive which will not only improve a vessels fuel consumption, but will also lower the CO2 output per nautical mile travelled.

MT: Based on cost effectiveness, what ‘simple steps’ can a shipowner introduce to a vessel’s SEEMP in order to improve its CII rating?

A relatively easy way for a ship operator to positively influence their SEEMP part III & CII rating is to incorporate Infineum’s combustion improver additive which will not only improve a vessels fuel consumption, but will also lower the CO2 output per nautical mile travelled as well as other key emissions (NOx, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons and smoke). Another benefit will be demonstrable through lower fuel consumption per nautical mile year by year and to that effect can become an integral part of how the annual energy efficiency/operational CII can be achieved in the SEEMP. A side benefit of additive use is that it contains a powerful fuel stabiliser chemistry which will minimise fuel lost as sludge thus further enhancing the overall fuel consumption of the vessel (as well as minimising potential sludge disposal costs).

MT: In terms of weightage, with such positive ABA trial test results, how much can Infineum’s upcoming combustion improver influence a vessel’s CII grade when having the combustion improver product combined with ‘simple steps’ in SEEMP?

Assessment of the vessels current energy usage should be documented as a first phase. Using the Infineum combustion improver should feature as part of the energy saving development plan. Implementation of the plan is the next phase, where the additive can be incorporated into the vessels regular bunkering activity and performance assessment can be verified through reduced fuel consumption. Of course, sailing conditions and route selection can influence fuel consumption heavily, however over an extended period of operation the benefits conferred by the additive will be apparent. This forms the final stage of the process, which is monitoring energy consumption which in turn links back to CII benefit.

MT: When will the combustion improver product be launched into the market?

The product is already commercially available globally under the brand name of Infineum B402 and Infineum is excited to offer a new solution to present and future customers. We welcome questions and enquiries at [email protected]

Photo credit: Infineum
Published: 3 October, 2022

Research

Yamna identifies five potential global ammonia bunkering hubs

Unlike methanol, ammonia is not constrained by biogenic CO2 availability, and its production process is relatively simple.

Published

4 months ago

December 31, 2024

Admin

Specialised green hydrogen and derivatives platform Yamna in early December identified several potential ammonia bunkering hubs around the world.

The hubs are Port of Rotterdam, Port of Algeciras, Suez Canal, Jurong Port, and Port of Salalah.

“The shipping industry faces an ambitious challenge: reducing emissions by 20% by 2030 (compared to 2008 levels) and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, in alignment with IMO targets,” it stated.

“Achieving these goals in the medium to long term depends on the adoption of alternative low-emission fuels like green ammonia and methanol.

“Among these, ammonia is attracting growing interest as a viable option. Unlike methanol, it is not constrained by biogenic CO2 availability, and its production process is relatively simple.”

However, the firm noted kickstarting ammonia bunkering on a large scale required four enablers to align:

Ammonia fuel supply
Application technology
Bunkering infrastructure
Safety guidelines and standards

It believed ammonia bunkering hubs will first emerge where affordable and scalable ammonia supply is available.

Yanma Why use ammonia for bunkering fuel

Photo credit: Yanma
Published: 31 December 2024

Research

Port of Long Beach releases Clean Marine Fuels White Paper

Document intended to prepare and position the port and its stakeholder for adopting low carbon alternative fuels.

Published

4 months ago

December 26, 2024

Admin

Clean Marine Fuels Port of Long Beach (December 2024)

The Port of Long Beach (PLB) in late December released the Clean Marine Fuels White Paper as part of efforts to identify solutions capable of reducing emissions from ships.

“To understand the opportunities and challenges related to the adoption of clean marine fuels, the Port of Long Beach hired ICF Consulting to develop this white paper as an educational resource and guidance document,” stated PLB

“This document is also intended to prepare and position the port and its stakeholder for adopting low carbon alternative fuels.

“The white paper provides high level information on the array of currently available low carbon marine fuels, along with an exploration of the potential infrastructure needs for their deployment.”

The document covers the use of different types of clean bunker fuels such as green hydrogen, green methanol, green ammonia, renewable LNG and biofuels for shipping.

“The shift to clean marine fuels is no longer optional but a necessity for the sustainability of the maritime industry,” stated PLB in its closing remarks.

“This transition, while presenting challenges such as high costs, limited fuel availability, and the need for extensive infrastructure development, is advancing due to evolving policy frameworks and growing industry commitment.

“Addressing these obstacles will require targeted initiatives and robust collaboration between public and private sectors. Continued policy support, government funding, and sustained industry commitment will be essential to driving this progress and ensuring the long-term sustainability of maritime operations.”

Editor’s note: The 123-page Clean Marine Fuels White Paper may be downloaded from the hyperlink here.

Photo credit: Clean Marine Fuels White Paper
Published: 26 December 2024

Port & Regulatory

Clyde & Co: FuelEU Maritime Series – Part 6: Legal issues

Bunker purchasers should consider the wording of their bunker supply contracts carefully and ensure that they are comfortable with the contractual provisions.

Published

4 months ago

December 26, 2024

Admin

Global law firm Clyde & Co on Thursday (19 December) released the final instalment of its six-part series uncovering the FuelEU Maritime Regulation.

In it, the firm looked at the legal issues that could potentially arise between various parties, such as owners, charterers, ship managers, bunker suppliers, and ship builders, as a result of the compliance requirements imposed by the Regulation.

The following is an excerpt from the original article available here:

Bunker supply contracts - legal issues

Both vessel owners and bunker purchasers will want to ensure that they are able to take advantage of the preferential treatment provided under the FuelEU Regulation for consuming renewable fuels, including biofuels and renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) (such as methanol and ammonia).

Article 10 of the FuelEU Regulation states that such fuels must be certified in accordance with the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) 2018/2001. If the fuel consumed by the vessel does not meet the applicable standards or have the appropriate certification, then it “shall be considered to have the same emissions factors as the least favourable fossil fuel pathway for that type of fuel”[1].

In order to confirm that the fuel complies with greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity and sustainability requirements, the vessel owner and bunker purchaser will want to ensure that the bunker supplier provides the appropriate certification required under the FuelEU Regulation. The EU has required certification of such fuels, with the aim of guaranteeing “the environmental integrity of the renewable and low-carbon fuels that are expected to be deployed in the maritime sector.”[2]

The FuelEU Regulation provides that the GHG intensity of fuel is to be assessed on a “well-to-wake” basis, with emissions calculated for the entire lifespan of the fuel, from raw material extraction to storage, bunkering and then use on board the vessel.

Vessel owners and bunker purchasers will, therefore, need to be mindful of the importance of establishing how “green” the fuel actually is, and of the risk of bunker suppliers providing alternative fuels that will not allow for preferential treatment under the FuelEU Regulation.

It would, therefore, be advisable for bunker purchasers to consider whether the wording of their bunkering supply contracts is sufficient to ensure that the fuel is properly certified under the FuelEU Regulation. This could include contractual provisions that require the supplier (i) to provide a bunker delivery note (BDN), setting out the relevant information regarding the supply (such as the well-to-wake emission factor), and (ii) to provide the necessary certification under a scheme recognised by the EU.

Bunker purchasers should also be mindful that bunkering supply contracts often contain short claims notification time bars and provisions restricting claims for consequential loss. Issues could therefore arise where a purchaser tries to advance a claim against the supplier for consequential loss due to a lack of certification, but the bunker supplier argues that such losses are excluded under the terms of the bunker supply contract.

Bunker purchasers should therefore consider the wording of their bunker supply contracts carefully and ensure that they are comfortable with the contractual provisions.

Photo credit: CHUTTERSNAP from Unsplash
Published: 26 December 2024