A number of environmental and shipping organisations have made a joint decision to support a ban on vessels carrying non-compliant marine fuel coming 2020, when the sulphur cap for bunkers drop from 3.5% to 0.5%.
The entities are: BIMCO, Clean Shipping Coalition, Cruise Lines International Association, Friends of the Earth U.S., International Chamber of Shipping, International Parcel Tankers’ Association, INTERTANKO, Pacific Environment, World Shipping Council, and WWF Global Arctic Programme.
According to their joint statement, a number of international associations representing the global shipping industry, as well as the Cook Islands and Norway, have already submitted proposals to IMO to ban the carriage of non-complaint fuels.
“These proposals call for an amendment to Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention, stipulating that ships should not carry fuel for propulsion with a sulphur content above 0.5% (unless they are using an approved alternative compliance method),” it said.
The 2020 sulphur cap will provide substantial environmental and human health benefits as a result of the reduced sulphur content of marine fuels used from 1 Jan 2020, they note.
However, it also significantly increases ships’ operating costs and will present major challenges to governments to consistently enforce the ban across the globe.
To secure the intended environmental and health benefits, the organisations say it is of utmost importance that enforcement of this standard is efficient and robust globally.
“Any failure by governments to ensure consistent implementation and enforcement could also lead to serious market distortion and unfair competition,” they state.
The industry proposal for the carriage ban of non-compliant marine fuel in 2020 will be considered at the next International Maritime Organization Sub Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response from 5 to 9 February.
Photo credit: Transport & Environment
Published: 23 January, 2018
Builds refinery using Eni Slurry Technology to convert refining residues into high quality light products.
Prohibits washwater discharge from open-loop scrubber whilst in Malaysian Water, states Marine Department.
Singapore’s swelling inventory has not prevent shortages, but constraints in bunker delivery infrastructure during the transition to low-sulphur fuels remain a concern.
Most HSFO supplies are based on long-term contracts, as shipowners look to lock in supplies even after the bulk of the market switched to VLSFO, reports Argus Media.
Understanding factors behind BC is a complex science as BC formation depends on multiple and variable factors and how they interact i.e. engine type, engine load etc.
Majority of problems with 0.5% sulphur fuel oil have arisen over sediment or sulphur content, and most disputes are resolved commercially, it said.
Glander International Bunkering (Norway) AS seeking payment of USD 115,963.52 (not including contractual compensation and interests) from the vessel’s demise charterer, according to court documents.
“In TotalEnergies, we already have projects along the e-Fuel value chain, from green electricity and green / blue hydrogen to e-Fuel production that will be integrated along the marine fuels value chain in time to come,” shares Louise Tricoire.
Buyers can nominate deliveries on platform and plan operations together with suppliers following ‘one single truth’ concept with all players aware of what has been agreed when and by whom, says DNV spokesman.
Rotterdam’s intention to mandate the usage of MFMs goes down well with licensed bunker supplier VT Group; MFM providers supportive of move but stressed continuous monitoring is needed for optimum performance.
Cost of alternative bunker fuels, bunker operations and technology advancement are some considerations to be examined by the maritime industry, says Neo, director of SDE International Pte Ltd.
Kim Hyung Joon and Han Donghoon were planning to join the Singapore entities of Hartree Group - either Hartree Partners Singapore Pte Ltd or Hartree Marine Fuels - in October, discovered management.
