The shipping industry’s commitment to consume 0.5% sulphur limit marine fuel in 2020 will also bring about non-technical types of challenges to shipowners, believes marine mutual liability insurer The North of England P&I Club.
“The challenges are not all just technical. Charterparties, where the obligation to provide bunkers is on the charterer will require close attention,” it says.
“This is a far more pressing matter for vessels already in long-term charterparties that span the enforcement date of 1 January 2020.”
The P&I club, meanwhile, noted that the majority of shipping companies intend to burn distillate fuels in their vessels’ engines and boilers to meet compliance with the 2020 MARPOL Annex VI global sulphur cap.
“In time, it is likely that a proportion will turn to hybrids, blends or any newly developed compliant residual fuels, depending on bunker prices and availability,” it notes.
“A smaller proportion has opted to install scrubbers and continue burning high sulphur residual fuels.
“Some shipowners are opting for LNG but retaining the ability to burn distillates by installing dual fuel (DF) engines. We expect the emerging fuels market will be very niche.”
The various solutions chosen by shipowners each come with their own pros and cons, mostly concerning fuel availability, onboard fuel management, capital expenditure and operational expenditure and maintenance requirements, it adds.
“It is not a simple choice and the decision on what method of compliance is best depends on a number of factors, such as vessel type, trading area and indeed its expected remaining life,” advises the organisation.
“The proportion of time spent within emission control areas (ECAs) should also be considered as well as the impact of changing over fuels when entering or leaving these areas.
“The 0.1% sulphur cap currently in operation within the ECAs will remain in force and it is possible that new ECAs may emerge in coming years.”
Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 14 May, 2018
Urges IMO to issue a resolution or circular calling States to report availability of compliant fuel oil.
Opportunities for geographical arbitrage were amplified by the uneven impact of COVID-19 in regions, while IMO 2020 created additional volatility in bunker fuel markets.
The guide introduces issues that may arise when seeking to comply with the Sulphur Cap and Carriage Ban, and likely areas of dispute in bunker fuel supply contracts.
Sulphur content issues, redelivery, and charterparty disputes among the most common problems encountered.
Partners KOBC, Hyundai Corporation, SK Trading International, Hyundai Global Service, DSEC, and PANASIA.
Test samples of 0.5% sulphur fuel produced from blending process found to have 0.16 to 0.21% m/m.
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.
