The World Shipping Council on Tuesday (26 October) released a post welcoming FuelEU’s proposal and its impact to the shipping industry and the environment.
As part of the EU Green Deal, the FuelEU Maritime Regulation intended to promote demand for lower greenhouse gas fuels can play an important role in shipping’s journey towards decarbonisation.
In a position paper published today, the World Shipping Council (WSC), representing 90% of international liner shipping, welcomes the FuelEU proposal as an opportunity to drive progress towards EU targets and contribute to the decarbonisation of international shipping.
However, the proposal’s actual impact will hinge on optimising the geographical scope of FuelEU and making sure fuel availability keeps pace with fuel use requirements.
WSC strongly supports the EC’s proposed ‘well-to-wake’ lifecycle approach for greenhouse gas intensity, as a comprehensive, globally accepted scientific approach. It is, however, crucial that the fuel use obligations outlined in the proposal are matched by measures to ensure the supply of suitable fuels and infrastructure through RED and AFIR. The legal requirement to use certain fuels should be contingent on their availability.
“When working towards a shared objective to minimize total greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the climate impact of shipping, a full lifecycle perspective is the only logical approach. That is also why FuelEU alignment with RED and AFIR is so important in ensuring the provision of genuinely clean fuels. Even if all the vessels in the world were able to run on alternative fuels and the sector is working hard to make that happen it will make no difference for our climate if that fuel is not available from clean sources,” says John Butler, President & CEO of World Shipping Council.
Climate progress for the EU – and internationally
The importance of AFIR and RED to the success of FuelEU also has a bearing on its geographic scope. These measures to ensure the supply of clean fuels apply within the EU, and the same geographic scope should apply for the fuel use obligation. As highlighted in the EU Impact Assessment, an extra-territorial scope for FuelEU presents real risks of overlapping regional and global policy. With that comes a substantial risk of the EU failing to influence international shipping as intended. A consistent intra-EU scope for FuelEU would avoid the pitfalls of overlapping policies and generate the desired climate impact for the Union whilst supporting international progress through the IMO with the EU in a leadership position.
Faster progress through synergies
The FuelEU Maritime proposal’s definition of the responsible entity recognises well that ship owners and ship operators share responsibility for the implementation of shipping decarbonisation measures. Truly effective actions require synergies between vessel technology, design and operation, and the proposed company definition gives all parties an incentive to work for GHG intensity reduction.
It is also consistent with the international nature of fleet operation, ownership, and control, supporting EU priorities for IMO agreements and measures to reduce GHGs in shipping.
WSC also sees the value of FuelEU’s proposed pooling of compliance amongst ships, an innovative and practical way to encourage companies to invest in ever more efficient vessels due to the fleet wide effect.
“The EU has a unique opportunity to strengthen, motivate and complement global policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in international shipping. We are committed to working with EU Institutions to achieve the Green Deal’s goals through good policy that will enable us to move as fast as possible to zero emission shipping,” concludes John Butler.
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.