The dry bulk industry could meet the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) mandate on greenhouse gases (GHG), through the use of alternative fuels such as ammonia, battery and hydrogen fuel cells, according to Star Bulk Carriers chief executive Hamish Norton.

In this interview, Norton discusses where the company stands in meeting the IMO 2030 GHG goals, how the IMO’s sulphur regulation has affected bunkering operations and more. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Did the IMO 2020 sulphur regulation have an effect on your bunkering operations, like a lack of high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) or very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) availability?

We rarely encountered non-availability of both sorts of fuel and that was only occasionally in specific ports, e.g. Fujairah, or smaller Chinese ports, and we learned of potential delays in many ports, large and small.

However, neither availability nor timing became a problem for us because we were able to deal with both potential problems by planning ahead. Instead of beginning the process of finding fuel three or four days before we needed it, we started planning 10 days or even two weeks ahead.

Additionally, we entered into term contracts, which guaranteed availability. The market has calmed down quite a bit now for both fuel grades, and we are back to lead times of 6-8 days.

Have you encountered off-specification VLSFO batches ?

We have not encountered off-spec VLSFO as we burn essentially no VLSFO. As the vast majority of our fleet are equipped with scrubbers, we burn primarily HSFO and supplement that with low sulphur marine gasoil (LSMGO). We have not experienced off-spec HSFO or LSMGO.

How much bunker fuel does Star Bulk burn per year, and do you procure bunkers on a spot basis, a term basis or both?

We burn approximately 700,000 tons/yr, depending, of course, on the average speed of the fleet in a given year, which correlates positively with charter rates and negatively with fuel prices.

We have not hedged fuel prices so far, although we have hedged the spread between HSFO and VLSFO for about 100,000 tons this year. We do not only procure bunkers on a spot basis but have also entered into term contracts.

How many vessels does Star Bulk have with scrubbers? Were there plans for more installations in 2020 that were delayed or cancelled?

We have 114 vessels fitted with scrubbers. No scrubber installations were cancelled.

As with every other shipowner who has installed scrubbers, there were delays, which became progressively worse after the first quarter of 2019. We were able to get all the scrubbers installed successfully by the end of the first quarter of 2020.

Has procuring HSFO to burn on your vessels with scrubbers been a problem? If so, in which ports?

We have not had any trouble procuring HSFO, but to a greater extent than before 2020, we must think about which ports to use for bunker procurement, and we have to plan ahead to a greater degree.

There are certainly fewer ports with HSFO (Indian ports, for example, or occasionally South Africa) but overall HSFO supply has been much better than anticipated in late 2019.

Do you expect interest in scrubber investments to grow once the pandemic is over?

We believe that the economics of owning scrubbers will improve when consumption of refined petroleum products increases, which should cause refinery utilization to increase.

We have no idea if the improved economics will reignite interest in scrubber investments.

Are there any particular fuels (such as hydrogen, LNG, ammonia, etc.) that you think the dry bulk shipping industry will embrace more than others to achieve IMO’s 2030 and IMO’s 2050 greenhouse emissions reduction targets?

If we had to guess what fuels the dry bulk shipping industry will use to meet the 2030 mandate, we would probably guess liquid petroleum products, augmented with speed reductions, engine improvements, hybrid electricity production on board, hull and propeller improvements and hull friction reduction.

There are several zero emission fuels which are currently being assessed by the industry, such as biofuels, hydrogen from renewable sources and ammonia from renewable sources.

Are there particular low-carbon fuels Star Bulk is considering?

Ammonia seems to be an attractive scenario except for its toxicity as it is truly carbon free if made from renewable electricity and is also scalable. Batteries or hydrogen fuel cells could also be promising for shorter-distance shipping.

Biofuels may also contribute to the industry’s decarbonization, however, demand from other sectors is expected to limit the availability of truly sustainable biofuels.

Other shipping companies say they achieved IMO 2030’s greenhouse gas emission goals in 2019. Is Star Bulk on track to achieving IMO’s 2030 goals, and by what means?

Star Bulk is on track to achieving IMO’s 2030 goals. Star Bulk has an energy efficiency management plan in place and has been taking a series of operational measures to optimize our fleet’s performance, including the application of weather routing systems and speed management practices.

Since 2018 we have utilized our vessel performance monitoring system to measure greenhouse gas emissions, and we are happy to report an improvement in our fleet’s energy efficiency operating index.

Do you think IMO’s 2030 greenhouse gas emission goals are ambitious enough?

Given the current state of energy saving technology, we view the 2030 emission goals as relatively ambitious, though we would be happy if the shipping industry performed even better than the goals that have already been set.

Do you think IMO’s 2050 greenhouse gas emission goals are easily achievable?

The 2050 goals require the introduction of carbon neutral fuels, along with the infrastructure to produce, transport and store them as well as the technology to burn those.

It is probable that decarbonization of the shipping industry will be driven by more than one zero emission fuel and different infrastructure technologies.

Star Bulk is also participating in feasibility studies for certain fuels that have the potential of being carbon neutral. We believe that it is only through partnerships and collaboration among different industry stakeholders that the transition to 2050 can be achieved.

How has the US-China trade war affected dry bulk rates, and do you expect it to during the second half of the year? Do the US election result play a role?

US-China trade clearly affects the psychology of the market, but it does not affect ton-miles very much. China buys soybeans, and their purchases of soybeans have been increasing as their pig population has been recovering from African Swine Fever.

But the alternative sources of soybeans in Latin America produce more ton-miles of demand than the relatively closer supply from the US Gulf.

We do not believe the election in the US is likely to have much influence on the dry bulk market.

A number of shipowners said emissions regulation uncertainty prevents them from ordering more ships. Is this uncertainty a major factor in your newbuild orders? What is Star Bulk’s orderbook?

We have no ships on order. Uncertainty about the economic life of a ship ordered today but having to operate in a future world in which regulations may change rapidly certainly affects our thinking about an investment in a ship, and we believe such uncertainty affects the thinking of most other shipowners in a position to order a ship.

We believe that such uncertainty is likely to keep the order book for ships of all types smaller than it would otherwise be. This reduction in ordering is a good thing and has to happen if the shipping fleet is going to meet the 2050 rules.

The shortage of ships over the long term will cause shipping rates to increase. The ships that will eventually become available to meet the 2050 standards will be expensive. One needs high rates to justify an investment in expensive ships. The market will solve the greenhouse gas problem if given the right incentives.

By Luis Gronda

Shipowners are also lacking the finances to make purchases, according to Ralph Leszczynski, head of research at shipbroker Banchero Costa & Co. “Most shipping markets are coming from a relatively poor decade, 2009 to 2019, in terms of earnings so most shipowners do not have that much cash in their pockets,” he said. “External finance is also in short supply as banks

LONDON: Royal Dutch Shell has struck a deal with Dutch tank terminal firm HES International to partially restart a German oil refinery mothballed since 2011 in response to new restrictions on marine fuels, two trading sources told Reuters.

A new cap set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that will cut the sulphur content in shipping fuel to 0.5 percent from 3.5 percent from next year is set to be one of the biggest fundamental events to hit oil markets in years.

HES Wilhelmshaven Tank Terminal is in the process of reinstalling the vacuum distillation unit (VDU) at Wilhelmshaven to produce low-sulphur bunker fuels ahead of the implementation of the IMO rules, a spokeswoman for the company said.

HES said it had “reached a tolling agreement with a customer,” but declined to comment on the parties involved.

However, two trading sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters the customer in question is Shell. Shell declined to comment.

The agreement is akin to a processing deal, whereby Shell brings in the feedstock and handles the end product, one of the sources said.

HES bought the 260,000 barrel per day (bpd) refinery from ConocoPhillips in 2011 and converted it into a large-scale tank terminal facility with capacity of 1.3 million cubic metres.

The plant’s refining capacity was shuttered at a time when several European refineries were finding it uncompetitive to remain operational, as newer, more complex mega-refineries emerged in other regions like the Middle East and Asia.

But as the new IMO rules dictate a massive shift in oil product slates from higher to low sulphur, the economics are shifting and oil companies and traders are resorting to creative ideas to meet the new demand.

The IMO sulphur restrictions will lead high-sulphur fuel oil demand to fall 60 percent to 1.4 million bpd next year, while marine gasoil demand will more than double to 2 million bpd, the International Energy Agency forecast this week.

Vacuum distillation is an integral part of the refining process. VDUs typically run on residual fuel produced from distilling crude to produce vacuum gasoil which is then used to feed upgrading units that make gasoline and diesel.

However, the Wilhelmshaven VDU will not be running on residual fuel, HES said.

One of the sources said the plan is to process heavy, low-sulphur crudes like Brazilian grades to produce a range of products, including maximum 0.5 percent sulphur fuel oil or distillate marine fuels.

HES is 70 percent owned by private investment firm Riverstone, with the remaining 30 percent held by the Carlyle Group.

Infrastructure funds managed by banks Macquarie and Goldman Sachs agreed in principle last year to buy the company.

Source: energy.economictimes.indiatimes

• The supply of VLSFO has proven more than adequate amid COVID-19.
• Call on marine gasoil (MGO) as an expensive alternative has been less than expected.
• Refiners have adjusted their crude sales and changed their blend component pools.
• The use of marine gasoil in engines has not increased as rapidly.
• This is attributed to the fact that ship engineers think in terms of volume rather than the energy content.
• Competition for low sulphur heavy gasoil and waxy streams has increased.
• The price of solar and wind continues to decrease steadily with increase in battery storage technology.
• The cost of hydrogen production is plummeting due to a likely surge in the availability of cheap renewable power.

According to an article published in The Manifold Times and Petroleum-Economist, the new rules on the sulphur content of shipping fuels came into force this year. This article revisits 2018 predictions to see what turned out as expected and what surprised.

Demand weakens due to COVID-19

It is easy to forget that, pre-COVID, new International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 regulations reducing the maximum sulphur content in much of the world’s bunker fuels from 3.5pc to 0.5pc were expected to be one of the dominant narratives in the year’s oil price dynamics.

The demand hit in the wake of pandemic’s global restrictions has, as well as eclipsing IMO 2020’s significance, also dampened its impact, as anticipated pressure on supply has been greatly reduced. Nonetheless, the effects are being felt—if more in the background than might have been expected.

Story so far

Among the most notable observations as yet, the supply of very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) has proven more than adequate, while the call on marine gasoil (MGO) as an expensive alternative has been less than expected.

Refiners have adjusted their crude sales and changed their blend component pools. And many have strengthened their direct position in the bunkering markets with their own—sometimes proprietary—blends of VLSFO.

The use of marine gasoil in engines has not increased as rapidly as we thought, perhaps as ship engineers still think in terms of volume rather than the energy content.

Competition for low sulphur heavy gasoil and waxy streams has increased, which has generated a revival in hydroskimming economics. And low sulphur vacuum gasoil (LSVGO) has become a reference both for cracker feedstock pricing and for bunker economics.

Supply of alternative fuels

Supply of other alternative fuels continues to be developed, most notably LNG—the fastest-growing and most scalable—with supply infrastructure expanding steadily. But these fuels, which also include methanol and ammonia, will act chiefly to achieve the targets set out in the IMO 2050 decarbonization agenda

On the other hand, scrubbing economics continues to hang in the balance. It is our expectation that scrubbing as a technology will be no more than a short-term solution, as shipowners switch to cleaner fuel alternatives.

Channoil revisited some work it did in 2018 on potential IMO 2020 impacts and looked in some depth at what it got right and wrong on the potential implications for various types of stakeholders compared with what we have seen so far (see Figs. 1-4).

Moving forward

Less than eight months in, and a highly unusual eight months at that, the IMO 2020 story is far from over. We must also look ahead to what might happen next. The outlook for fuels and distillate prices is confused due to a number of ‘known unknowns’, including:

• Uptake of renewable fuels
• Uptake of electric cars and their impact on power generation
• The potential impact of carbon capture and storage
• Growth in coker investments
• Growth in LNG/LPG/methanol as bunker fuels
• Impact of incompatibility within new blended fuels
• Potential for cheaper scrubber technology
• Other technological breakthroughs
• A realistic price setting for carbon emissions.

Observations to be made on uncertainties

But there are certain observations we can offer on some of these uncertainties. For one, the price of solar and wind continues to decrease steadily. Coupled with the increase in battery storage technology, this has put the renewable argument to the fore. The cost of hydrogen production is also plummeting and—due to a likely surge in the availability of cheap renewable power—electrolysis is making hydrogen power a realistic contender for the fuel crown.

Forecast growth of electric and hybrid cars also continues to push further upwards. The effect of 1mn electric cars—assumed by 2035—is to reduce crude oil demand by 1mn bl/d. But we are conscious of the fact that, in developed economies, carpools are rotated every seven years. If the fashion for electric cars accelerates, then that timeframe could get rapidly shorter.

Policy goals to reduce diesel cars

European governments, for example, those of France and the UK, have also set policy goals to reduce the number of diesel cars. A big reduction in diesel engines will have an immediate effect on the price of the middle distillate. If coker investments carry on, then it is possible to imagine a scenario where the differential between diesel and HFO will narrow.

The use of marine gasoil (MGO) in engines has not increased as rapidly as we thought, perhaps as ship engineers still think in terms of volume ($/t) rather than energy content ($/mn Btu). There is also a lubricity argument in favor of higher viscosity fuels, while low viscosity MGO needs cooling before it enters the engine and thus, if VLSFO is available, it is more ‘engineer acceptable’. But the question will arise again once NOx and PMO specifications are tightened ­further.

IMO 2020, or ‘MARPOL Annex VI, regulation 14’ as it was less memorably known back when we started preparing for it in 2018, was always going to bring huge changes for shipping.

For some people, it was even going to be as substantial as ships’ switch from coal to oil in the early 20th century. Those predictions have fortunately proven to be unfounded so far, but there hasn’t been any shortage of challenges for our industry in the wake of IMO 2020’s arrival.

Mergers for expansion

During the last few weeks as we’ve been concluding our merger with OceanConnect and I’ve had a chance to reflect on how far we’ve come this year.

• It’s easy to forget that crude prices started to slide not only because of Covid-19 in February and March but also due to disagreements within OPEC+ about how much oil they should produce. Covid-19 has reduced demand for oil and created a huge glut of both crude and refined products. Even if a vaccine emerges soon, we’re unlikely to see this oversupply abate entirely; not least because countries like Venezuela, Libya, and Iran with huge crude reserves are currently ‘offline.’
• At times in January, it looked as though shipowners who’d invested in scrubbers for their fleets could see payback periods of less than two years in some cases. By March, however, the spread between 3.5% HSFO and 0.5% VLSFO dropped to as low as $40 a tonne from over $300, and payback periods are now commonly assumed to be at least four or five years. We’re unlikely to see sustained interest for retrofitting scrubbers as long as the spread remains low. On new builds, I’m slightly more optimistic about positive economics.
• By common estimates, the three biggest cruise lines, Carnival, Norwegian, and RCCL together on average consumed about half a million tons of bunkers each month in 2019. For context, that’s more than 10% greater than total fuel sales of Panama registered by the AMP. Especially for physical suppliers in cruise hotspots like the Caribbean, which supports about a third of global cruise voyages, bunker demand is unlikely to return in full before 2022 at the earliest.
• The bunker price volatility we’ve seen this year – and in many previous years – is a textbook example of why it pays to consult with your marine fuel supplier to help manage this risk. I was talking to a longstanding client last week, and for her, there are three big advantages to be gained from hedging and risk management: Reduced volatility reduces the cost of capital; knowing there will be no abrupt cost increases means that they can more easily plan ahead, and by smoothing out revenue and expenses they know they won’t need to borrow on unfavorable terms because they’ve got good liquidity.
• The merging of KPI Bridge Oil and OceanConnect brings together a wealth of knowledge and expertise, new ideas and ways of thinking, and a renewed energy to a changing marketplace. There’s no shortage of challenges ahead for the shipping or bunkering markets, but I’m very optimistic about the company we’re building and the value we can provide.

Did you subscribe to our daily newsletter?

It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe!

Source: Petroleum-Economist & ManifoldTimes

Joining forces to shape the fishery sector of tomorrow is the newly launched (3 September) publication prepared by IMO, ILO and FAO. The new brochure will help promote safe and decent work in fisheries through the application of international standards.

The publication provides an overview of the four main international binding fisheries conventions/agreements* that promote the safety of fishing vessels, safety of fishers, training of fishers, and responsible and safe fisheries operations.

Guidance for policy and decision-makers in the fisheries, maritime, and labour sectors is also provided with a view to encourage the ratification and implementation of the above-mentioned fisheries instruments.

As fishing remains one of the most dangerous professions in the world, the sector needs to change to become more sustainable. This publication aims to support governments in achieving their commitments towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8: Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all; and SDG 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.

* The IMO (2012) Cape Town Agreement (CTA), The IMO (1995) International Convention on Training, Certification and for Fishing Vessels Personnel (STCW-F), The ILO (2007) Work in Fishing Convention (C188), The (2009) FAO Agreement on Port States Measures to Prevent Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA)

Source:imo

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is taking initiatives to promote sustainability and reduce harmful sulphur gases emissions. While the new regulation to reduced maximum sulphur content (currently 3.5%) to 0.5% will be fully enforced on January 1, 2020, it is expected that the adjustment on bunker surcharge will come into effect already at the last quarter of 2019.

• Impact on shippers

With the new regulations to be fully enforced on January 1, 2020, carriers are getting prepared during the course of the year with some options available:

1. Switch to low-sulphur fuel
2. Use Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems which commonly known as a “scrubber” to clean up the sulphur oxide emitted from the vessel’s engine.
3. Change the fleet to Liquefied Natural Gas Ships that are powered by Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). LNG is considered as a cleaner fuel with less emission of greenhouse gases including sulphur oxide.

To ensure a smooth transition, carriers have to implement the above changes before January 1, 2020. Due to the investment in clean energy and cleaning systems, there will be an adjustment to the bunker surcharge formula which is expected to be effective from the last quarter of 2019.

• What is IMO 2020?

IMO is proactively taking steps to reduce marine pollution and minimize the vessels’ impact on global warming. Currently, most of the cargo ships use heavy fuel oil which is derived from crude oil and contains sulphur oxide. The gases can cause acid rain and trigger respiratory diseases. Therefore, the tolerant of sulphur oxide emissions has been tightened progressively throughout the past decade.

Also known as “IMO 2020 fuel sulphur regulation”, IMO 2020 is an initiative from the IMO which aims to reduce sulphur oxide emissions from ships.

By the deadline of January 1, 2020, all carriers will have to comply with the new regulation, which imposes a 0.5% global sulphur cap on fuel content and replaces the current limit of 3.5%.

Source: dachser

The Standard Club said that the first vessel was in Qingdao when it underwent a Port State Control (PSC) inspection by the Chinese Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) and was found to be using fuel with a sulphur content of 0.6777% mm.

The second vessel was in Xiamen and found by the MSA to be using non-compliant fuel having been at a berth for six days after changing to compliant fuel.

Related: IMO 2020: Low sulphur fuel prices surge, discount to MGO vanishes

However, it is likely that previous high sulphur fuel residue remained in the engine fuel system resulting in emissions over the China ECA limit. The ship was ordered to take effective measures to purify the fuel system.

The P&I insurer said it was unclear whether the Chinese authorities would fine the vessels involved. They can be fined no less than RMB10,000 ($1,445) up to a maximum of RMB100,000 under Chinese regulations.

The violations are the first reported since the 0.5% cap on sulphur for marine fuel came into force on 1 January, with the transition appearing to have been relatively smooth so far.

Read: IMO 2020 – A smooth transition?

The Just In Time Arrival Guide has been developed by the Global Industry Alliance (GIA) to support low carbon shipping, based on research and discussion amongst its membership, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) said.

As explained, the guide documents the findings of a series of industry roundtables which brought together nearly 50 companies and organizations who are key stakeholders in the port call process.

Widely recognized as a means of increasing port efficiency and port call optimization, the successful implementation of JIT Arrivals can have a significant environmental impact through reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from optimizing the ships’ speed to arrive just in time. The concept is based on the ship maintaining an optimal operating speed, to arrive at the pilot boarding place when the availability is assured of: 1. berth; 2. fairway; and 3. nautical services.

The JIT Arrivals concept is also said to contribute to reduced time at anchorage and therefore reduced congestion in the port area. It is estimated that ships spend up to 9 per cent of their time waiting at anchorage, which could be reduced through the implementation of JIT Arrivals.

The guide is said to provide “a holistic approach” to Just In Time Arrivals, considering contractual aspects to its implementation as well as operational. It is envisaged as a useful toolkit for many stakeholders including shipowners, ship operators, charterers, ship agents, shipbrokers, port authorities, terminals, nautical and vessel service providers. All these actors ultimately play a key role in implementing the necessary changes and facilitating the exchange of communication required to realize JIT Arrivals.

The Low Carbon GIA is a public–private partnership with the aim to identify and develop innovative solutions to address common barriers to the uptake and implementation of energy efficiency technologies and operational measures.

The Low Carbon GIA was originally established under the framework of the GEF-UNDP-IMO Global Maritime Energy Efficiency Partnerships Project (GloMEEP Project), and since the conclusion of the GloMEEP Project at the end of 2019, the Low Carbon GIA has been operating under the framework of the IMO-Norway GreenVoyage2050 Project.

Source: offshore-energy