North and Baltic Sea Seminar 2010 Program
“Air Emissions from Shipping:
Regulations and Challenges”
Peter M. Swift
MD INTERTANKO
26 November 2010
Paris
INTERTANKO Today
250 + members operating ca. 3,100 ships
> 75% of the independent oil tanker fleet and > 85% of the chemical carrier
fleet
300 + associate members:
in oil and chemical tanker related businesses
[With strict membership criteria]
15 Committees – 5 Regional Panels
Principal Offices – London and Oslo
Representative Offices in US, Asia and Brussels
Observer Status at IMO, IOPC, UNFCCC, OECD and UNCTAD
International Association of Independent Tanker Owners
“The Voice of the Tanker Industry”
INTERTANKO’s Strategic Objectives
To develop and promote best practices in all sectors
of the tanker industry, with owners and operators
setting the example.
To be a positive and proactive influence with key
stakeholders, developing policies and positions,
harmonising a united industry voice, and engaging
with policy and decision makers.
To profile and promote the tanker industry,
communicating its role, strategic importance and social
value.
To provide key services to Members, with customised
advice, assistance and access to information, and
enabling contact and communication between
Members and with other stakeholders.
TANKERS
US
Seafarer Concerns Today
• Criminalisation & Fair Treatment
• Piracy
• Bureaucracy, including:
- excessive paperwork
- too many inspections
More consideration should be given to the
ramifications for the seafarer of new regulations
and legislation at IMO and elsewhere
– e.g. ballast water, multi-fuels, emission
abatement technologies, etc.
Air Emissions from Shipping
• Toxic emissions – SOx, NOx, PM – covered by IMO
MARPOL Annex VI, EU and other regional
regulations
• VOCs (Tankers) – covered by MARPOL
• Ozone Depleting Substances – covered by MARPOL
• Greenhouse gases (principally CO2) – under debate
at UNFCCC and IMO
SOx = Oxides of Sulphur, NOx = Oxides of Nitrogen, PM = Particulate Matter
VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds,
UNFCCC= United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
IMO = International Maritime Organisation .
“ Toxic Emissions from Shipping
- SOx and NOx ”
The Challenges Today
SOx and NOx Regulations
• SOx emissions regulated via Bunkers
- with alternative methodologies accepted as
Equivalent Measures
• NOx emissions regulated through engine
design / limits
Maximum Sulphur Limits
- IMO MARPOL Annex VI
• limits the sulphur content in marine fuels
• different sulphur limits in open sea and in ECAs
• requires quality criteria for the marine fuels
IMO Global S limit:
Currently
1 July 2012
1 January 2020 / (2025)
IMO ECA limit:
Initially
1 July 2010
1 July 2015
ECA = Emission Control Area
4.5%
3.5%
0.5% / (if not available
in 2020)
1.5%
1.0%
0.1%
IMO MARPOL Annex VI:
Baltic and North Sea ECAs
NOV. 2007
MAY
2006
IMO MARPOL Annex VI: North American ECA
Entry into force 1 August 2012
Challenges:
•Extent
•Fuel availability
•Ship bunker capacity
200 nm
200 nm
Will Mexico join ?
Caribs?
Regional Regulations on Bunkers
EU Sulphur Directive (presently being amended)
– basically as per MARPOL Annex VI sulphur provisions
– but with additional provision: use of 0.10% sulphur
content fuel when ships ”at berth” (since 1 Janaury 2010)
– & MGO/MDO on the EU market should have < 0.1% S
content (since 1 January 2010)
California Air Resource Board (CARB)
– use marine distillates within 24nm of the shore
– sulphur content in marine distillates:
• before 1 January 2012 – MDO < 0.50% ; MGO <1.50%
• after 1 January 2012 - MDO/MGO< 0.10%
Sulphur in Bunkers:
Application Dates and Limits
4.5
4
IMO/Global
HFO
SULPHUR CAP (%)
3.5
IMO/ECA
3
EU
2.5
CARB
MGO
2
1.5
LSFO
1
0.5
MDO/MGO
MDO
MGO
0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
nu
Ja
nu
Ja
nu
Ja
nu
Ja
nu
Ja
nu
Ja
nu
Ja
nu
Ja
y
ar
y
ar
y
ar
y
ar
y
ar
y
ar
y
ar
y
ar
24
20
22
20
20
20
18
20
16
20
14
20
12
20
10
20
NOx Emission Regulations
- IMO MARPOL Annex VI
IMO MARPOL Annex VI sets limits in 3 Tiers
• Generally on ships built pre 2000 and engine not
modified - No limits
• Engines on ships built post 2000 mostly comply
with Tier I limits
• Engines on ships built after 1 January 2011 must
comply with Tier II standards
Emission reductions related to Tier I limits:
– 15.5% reduction (engines with n<130 rpm) (i.e. 14.36 g/kWh)
– reductions between 15.5% and 21.8% depending on the
engine’s rpm (engines with 130 rpm < n < 2000 rpm)
– 21.8% reduction (engines n > 2000 rpm) (i.e. 7.66 g/kWh)
NOx Emissions-Tier III
(new engines)
Tier III limits – 80% emission reductions from Tier I limits
Tier III limits apply to engines:
– installed on ships constructed after 1 Jan 2016
– power output of > 750 kW
(130 kW – 750 kW may be exempted by the
Administration)
Tier III limits apply in ECAs only
Emission levels for Tier III are as follows:
– 3.40 g/kWh (engines with n<130 rpm)
– 9*n(-0.2) g/kWh (engines with 130 rpm < n < 2000 rpm)
– 1.96 g/kWh (engines n > 2000 rpm
Fuel Challenges for Ships
• Availability of Low S bunkers globally
• Quality issues (incl. measurement and verification)
• Requirements for multi-fuels
• Fuel switching – safety concerns (main engines
and auxiliaries)
• Onboard storage & segregation capacity
“ Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions ”
Challenges mostly met
VOC Control Measures
Reductions during loading and on passage
e.g. using INTERTANKO VOCON procedure
plus Absorption, Condensation and other measures
“ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ”
The Coming Challenges
Climate Change Challenges
For shipping:
Protection of the Marine
Environment includes Atmospheric
Environment
GHG emissions – principally
CO2 emissions
Shipping is energy efficient
- environmentally responsible, reliable and cost efficient
Transport distance for 1 ton cargo per kg GHG emissions
Air plane
1,9
Heavy truck
9,0
Ro-ro ship
29,8
Freight train
40,5
Container ship
53,8
General cargo ship
72,6
Product tanker
91,2
Bulk carrier
217,1
VLCC tanker
235,9
0
50
100
150
km
Source: Danish Shipowners Association
200
250
Shipping is energy efficient, BUT…
CO2 emissions by country (2007)
CO2 emissions from shipping 2.7% of global total (2007)
and predicted to grow as trade expands
Reducing GHG Emissions from Shipping
Regulatory Processes & Timetables
• UNFCCC Programme
• IMO Programme
• Industry Initiatives
The Regulatory Processes
• UNFCCC 1992
• IMO since 1997
• Kyoto Protocol, adopted 1997 entered into force 2005
• Copenhagen Accord 2009
UNFCCC = United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Kyoto Protocol
• Established under UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) – adopted in 1997
• Ratified by 181 countries – not the USA
• Categorises Annex 1 (Developed) Countries and NonAnnex 1 (Developing) Countries
• Annex 1 Countries are committed to make GHG reductions
with set targets, but also flexible mechanisms
• Runs through to 2012, - Conference of Parties
endeavouring to develop a successor
• Kyoto recognises “common but differentiated
responsibilities”, i.e. developed countries produce more
GHGs and should be more “responsible” for reductions
• Kyoto looks to IMO to address Shipping and ICAO to
address Aviation, and as such these emissions are
currently excluded from Kyoto targets
Recent and future timetable
Selected Key Dates
12/2009
UNFCCC COP15 Meeting, Copenhagen
3/2010
IMO MEPC 60
2010
IMO MEPC MBM-Expert Group
IMO MEPC Intersessional (EEDI)
2010
UNFCC Intersessional meetings
9/2010
-----------11/2010
-----------7/2011
IMO MEPC 61
11/2011
UNFCCC COP17 Meeting, South Africa
12/2011
EU Deadline for IMO/International Agreement
2012
Kyoto Protocol expires
UNFCCC COP16 Meeting, Cancun
IMO MEPC 62
IMO – UNFCCC
Conflicting principles - a major issue
IMO Principle:
“No More Favourable Treatment”
Versus
Kyoto Protocol principle:
“Common But Differentiated Responsibility”
UNFCCC - COP15
The outcome:
• NO targets
• NO resolution of Kyoto/IMO Treaty conflict
• NO direct reference to international shipping in the
non-binding Copenhagen Accord
BUT subsequently:
• International Aviation and Shipping should be
regulated via UNFCCC and have targets as per other
industries (EU Parliament)
• Shipping should make its “contribution” to Climate
Change measures with $$$$ (UN Advisory Group)
• ICAO and IATA agree a package of reduction measures
IMO Programme
IMO (MEPC) developing:
• Technical Measure (EEDI for new ships)
• Operational Measure (SEEMP & EEOI
for new and existing ships)
• Market Based Measure (if needed)
Technical Measures
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
Environmen
tal cost
Attainedenergyefficiencydesign index 
Benefit for society
Environmental cost = Emission of CO2
Benefit = Cargo capacity transported a certain distance
• measures energy efficiency of new ships
• encourages design and technical developments
Technical Measures
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
EEDI =
(g/tonne mile)
CO2 factor x SFC[FOC] (g/kW h) x Engine Power (kW)
----- ---------------------------------------------------------------Capacity (tonne) x Speed (mile/h)
Initially only the calculation of the Attained EEDI was planned to
be mandatory, but the drive is to establish a mandated
requirement, such that the Attained EEDI < Required EEDI
EEDI Required
[ Tankers>20,000 DWT ]
Reference Line = Phase 0 = no reduction (2013 & 2014)
EEDI
Phase 1
2015 - 2019
Attained EEDI < Required EEDI
10%
20%
Phase 2
2020 - 2024
30%
Phase 3
on and after 2025
DWT
Operational Measures
• Ship Energy Efficiency Managment Plan (SEEMP)
– encourages improvement energy efficiency of ships in
operation
– best measurable practices on operational procedures
setting goals
– plan implementation strategy
– monitoring – Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI)
– procedures for self-evaluation and improvement towards
set goals
• Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) =
CO2 emitted per unit of transport work
CO2 emitted measured from fuel consumption
Transport work = cargo mass x distance (nm)
EEOI is “voluntary” – a management tool
Operational Measures
Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI)
CO2 factor x [FOC] (g)
EEOI (g/tonne mile) = ---------------------------------------------------------------Cargo Mass (tonne) x Sailed Distance (mile)
Market Based Measures
MBMs under review at MEPC
• Emissions Trading Schemes
• GHG Fund and Leveraged Incentive Schemes
• Ship Efficiency & Credit Trading
and Vessel Efficiency System
• Rebate Mechanism
Some would require all ships to pay a contribution
Some provide rewards to more energy efficient ships
Most include a support mechanism to developing countries
Why are MBMs Proposed ?
• Ships have a long life – EEDI takes time / operational measures
not readily quantifiable; further “incentives” may be needed
• International trade and shipping will continue to grow
• A deemed “need” to fund offsetting in other sectors
or ETS
or other
MBM
Future Means of Reducing GHG
Emissions from Shipping
Industry activities and initiatives
Means of Reducing GHG
Emissions from Shipping
Industry initiatives:
• Work on EEDI – formula and reference line (workshops)
• Developing and assessing additional GHG reduction
measures for new and existing ships (workshops)
• Developing Marginal Abatement Cost Curves
- to determine what is achievable (study groups)
• Developing and implementing operational measures, such
as “Optimal speed” (Liners) and “Virtual Arrival” (Tankers
and Bulkers)
• Developing industry SEEMPs, such as INTERTANKO’s
TEEMP – Tanker Energy Efficiency Management Plan
plus
• Active participation in MBM Expert Group
Technical and Operational Mitigation
Measures
Technical and Operational Mitigation
Measures
Marginal Abatement Cost Curves
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT,
Not for circulation
Developed in conjunction with DNV
Virtual Arrival
OCIMF / INTERTANKO project
THE CONCEPT:
Virtual arrival is about identifying delays at
discharging ports, then managing the vessel’s
arrival time at that port/terminal through well
managed passage speed, resulting in reduced
emissions but not reducing capacity.
It is NOT not about blanket speed reduction to match
current market conditions.
Virtual Arrival is all about managing time and
managing speed.
Virtual Arrival
OCIMF / INTERTANKO project
THE MECHANICS:
• Cooperation agreement between Charterer (Terminal
Operator) and Owner
• Speed is “optimised” when ship’s estimated arrival is
before the terminal is ready
• Owners and Charterers agree a speed adjustment
• May use an independent 3rd party to calculate / audit
adjustment
• Owners retain demurrage, while fuel savings and any
carbon credits are split between parties
Virtual Arrival
- additional benefits
In addition to directly reduced emissions, other benefits
include:
• Reduced congestion & toxic emissions in the port area
• Improved reliability/safety
• Potentially increased use of weather routing
Important pre-conditions:
• The safety of the vessel remains paramount
• The authority of the vessel’s Master remains unchanged
• The basic terms of trade remain the same
Is an MBM needed for Shipping ?
With bunker costs frequently 60-80 % of total
operating costs, does shipping need any further
market incentive to reduce GHG emissions ?
1400
USD/tonne
1200
Bunker prices 2000 – 2010 [USD/tonne]
HFO 380 cst / MDO / MGO*, Fujairah
1000
MDO/MGO*
800
600
*MGO since Dec 2008
400
HFO
Source: Bunkerworld
Sep-10
May-10
Jan-10
Sep-09
May-09
Jan-09
Sep-08
May-08
Jan-08
Sep-07
May-07
Jan-07
Sep-06
May-06
Jan-06
Sep-05
May-05
Jan-05
Sep-04
May-04
Jan-04
Sep-03
May-03
Jan-03
Sep-02
May-02
Jan-02
Sep-01
May-01
Jan-01
0
Sep-00
200
THANK YOU
For more information, please visit:
www.intertanko.com
www.shipping-facts.com
www.maritimeindustryfoundation.com
IMO MARPOL Annex VI: North Sea ECA
62˚N
4˚W
57˚44.8’ N
5˚W
48˚30’N
Global Bunkering
One - third of bunkers are supplied in ECA ports
USA 12.70%
Canada & Mexico
0.30%
Baltic Sea 3%
North Sea 18%
Rest of the World
66%
Marine distillates on EU must have < 0.10% sulphur content
Source: Poten & Partners
Challenges for ships
• Switching between at least 3 grades of fuel
• Calling at EU ports, ships need to use:
– Deep sea fuel (HFO)
– ECA fuel (LSFO)
– EU - ”at berth”/”at anchor” fuel (MGO)
• Onboard storage & segregation capacity
• Increase risk of fuel incompatibility
• Increases the risks of boiler incidents
• Safety requires upgrading/modifications
• Viscosity, lubricity, flash point temp.
Quality Problems with Marine Fuel Oils
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HIGH ABRASIVE FUELS
HIGH ASH
LOW FLASH POINT
HIGH SEDIMENTS
HIGH DENSITY
FUELS CONTAINING USED LUBE OILS
POLYETHYLENE CONTAMINATION
POLYSTYRENE CONTAMINATION
HIGH CALCIUM & HIGH SODIUM
HIGH WATER CONTENT
CONTAMINATED FUELS
INCOMPATIBILITY OF BLENDS
FATTY ACIDE METHYL ESTER (FAME)
EEDI / EEOI
CO2 factor x SFC[FOC] (g/kW h) x Engine Power (kW)
EEDI (g/tonne mile) = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Capacity (tonne) x Speed (mile/h)
CO2 factor x [FOC] (g)
EEOI (g/tonne mile) = ---------------------------------------------------------------Cargo Mass (tonne) x Sailed Distance (mile)