sailing close to the wind: exploring energy options...in previous years – in order to do justice...

Inside:• LNG Update• Carbon Trading• Barge Safety• Bunker Metering• Marine Lubes• News and Events

INDEPENDENT INTELLIGENCE FOR THE GLOBAL BUNKER INDUSTRY

SAILING CLOSE TO THE WIND:Exploring energy options

www.bunkerspot.com Volume 8 Number 5 October / November 2011

bunkerspot October / November 2011 www.bunkerspot.com 3

FEATURES

COMMERCIAL ISSUESMoore Stephens tells Bunkerspot that overtonnaging fears have sent shipping confidence to an all-time low 26

HEALTH & SAFETYKevin Gilheany considers how new safety regulations will affect the US barge and towing industry

BUNKERSPOT WORLD MAPGlobal prices and news at a glance 32

LNG UPDATELesley Bankes-Hughes considers whether shipping is facing up to the challenges of LNG 34

BUNKER METERINGJan Kik tells Bunkerspot why certified bunkering measurement solutions have been adopted by operators and suppliers to ensure correct bunkering delivery 36

MARINE LUBRICATIONPatrick Havil looks at how using the right marine lubricants can help shipowners manage the change-over between low and high sulphur fuels 40

ENVIRONMENTAL SPOTLIGHT: CARBON TRADINGTim Gore of Oxfam argues that the time has come for a carbon price for international shipping 42

ENVIRONMENTAL SPOTLIGHT: RENEWABLE FUELSDiane Gilpin of B9 Shipping argues that carbon reduction commitments will stimulate demand for ships powered by renewable fuels 44

ENVIRONMENTAL SPOTLIGHT: EEDI AND EMISSIONSBill Hemmings of T&E gives a status report on the EEDI and emissions cuts 46

ENVIRONMENTAL SPOTLIGHT: SECA UPDATEAnkie Janssen argues that regulations on sulphur emissions could present new opportunities for port authorities 48Trevor Harrison looks at what progress is being made in Europe on cutting sulphur levels 52

ENVIRONMENTAL SPOTLIGHT: INDUSTRY CASE STUDYInterferry’s Len Roueche looks at how the ferry industry is meeting the challenge of environmental regulations 56

EVENTSWISTA’s 2011 conference proved to be a valuable forum for the exchange of ideas on shipping’s key trends and concerns 57Llewellyn Bankes-Hughes previews Africa’s leading bunkering event 58

Events and training course diary 60

NETWORKINGBunker people on the move 62

Contents

0706 bunkerspot v6i6.indd 2 02/12/2009 16:05

Bunkerspot is an integrated news and intelligence service for the international bunker industry. The bi-monthly magazine and 24/7 electronic news service, www.bunkerspot.com, both provide highly-specific information on all aspects of the marine fuels industry. Bunkerspot Magazine (published in February, April, June, August, October and December) annual subscription rate, including unlimited

access to the website www.bunkerspot.com, is UK£250/€280/US$400. ISSN 1741-6981. Copyright Petrospot Limited © 2011. All rights reserved. Published by Petrospot Limited, a dynamic independent publishing, training and events organisation, focused on providing information resources for the transportation, energy and maritime industries. Disclaimer: Bunkerspot is an editorially independent magazine and electronic news information service. The information contained in the magazine and website is presented in good faith. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Petrospot Limited, which does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in Bunkerspot. Nor does Petrospot accept responsibility for errors or omissions or their consequences. No part of Bunkerspot may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photographic, recorded or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Visit www.petrospot.com

HEAD OFFICEPetrospot Limited · Petrospot House Somerville Court ·Trinity Way ·Adderbury Oxfordshire OX17 3SN · England +44 1295 81 44 55 +44 1295 81 44 66 [email protected] www.bunkerspot.com

DIRECTOR - PUBLISHING / EDITORIan Taylor +44 7876 70 45 41 [email protected]

MANAGING DIRECTOR / PUBLISHERLlewellyn Bankes-Hughes +44 7768 57 44 30 [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITORLesley Bankes-Hughes +44 7815 57 86 43 [email protected]

ADVERTISING SALES EXECUTIVESteve Simpson +44 7800 75 52 78 [email protected]

DIRECTOR - EVENTSLuci Llewellyn-Jones +44 7775 92 42 24 [email protected]

EVENTS MANAGERStacey Smith [email protected]

EVENTS & MARKETING ASSISTANTHannah Whitty [email protected]

MARKETING MANAGERLouise McKee +44 7951 70 31 03 [email protected]

EVENTS & SUBSCRIPTIONS SALES Elena Melis +44 7975 89 52 03 [email protected] Mitchell +44 7789 20 20 10 [email protected] Leader +44 7771 54 03 82 [email protected] Matthew Conisbee +44 7500 68 88 70 [email protected]

ACCOUNTSHelen Wilkins [email protected]

NORTH AMERICA REPRESENTATIVEJackie Hoo Bryant (Miami, United States) +1 305 456 1838 +1 786 302 7667 [email protected]

LATIN AMERICA REPRESENTATIVEChristophe Cahen (Bogotá, Colombia) +57 1 866 1171 +57 317 501 6944 [email protected]

AFRICA REPRESENTATIVEMaria Tierney (Cape Town, South Africa) +27 22 448 1726 +27 72 804 9569 [email protected]

MAGAZINE LAYOUT & PRODUCTIONAlison Design and Marketing Ltd [email protected] www.alison.co.uk

NEWS Bunker Overview 4Europe 8Americas 14Asia Pacific 20 Africa and Mideast 24

October / November 2011 bunkerspotwww.bunkerspot.com4

Bunker Overview

W E S T & E A S T A F R I C A � AT L A N T I C / I N D I A N O C E A NC A N A R Y I S L A N D S � G E R M A N Y � G R E E C E

W O R L D W I D E T R A D I N G

A TRUSTED NAME IN

BUNKERINGNOW DELIVERING

IN GERMANY

Addax Bunkering Services

AN AFFILIATE OF THE ADDAX AND ORYX GROUP

Addax Bunkering Services Germany GmbH, Zirkusweg 2, 20359 Hamburg

Tel. No: +49 40 30 23 9680 Fax No: +49 40 30 23 96820

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.addax-oryx.com

WORKING SOLUTIONS FOR ALL YOUR BUNKERING NEEDS

Project4 6/10/11 13:31 Page 1

Shipping may be in the doldrums, but bunkering sails onAs this issue of Bunkerspot went to press, fears about the continuing debt crisis were once again playing their part in bringing oil prices down. On the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures dipped below $78 a barrel, while Brent crude on London’s IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) was trading close to the $100 a barrel mark.

On the eve of a meeting of 17 eurozone finance ministers in Luxembourg on 3 October, Greece’s finance ministry said that the country’s deficit for this year was likely to be 8.5% of its gross domestic product (GDP) and there was a strong chance that it would not be able to pay its bills without another hefty loan.

The Luxembourg gathering did not go as Greece would have hoped. A follow-up meeting that had been set for 13 October, when officials were due to sign off an €8 billion ($10 million) loan for Greece, was cancelled. The Eurogroup chairman Jean-Claude

12 month rolling price charts

Juncker said that Greece would still be able to meet its financial obligations, as long as it received the money in November.

The Euro debt crisis is becoming a permanent fixture of this round-up column, sharing the billing with the slow-down in the world economy – with many countries actually seeing a contraction. Greece has been badly hit in this regard, with its bean counters predicting a 5.5% shrinkage for this year.

In our August/September Bunker Overview, we quoted liberally from a Moore Stephens report that suggested optimism was at a premium in the shipping industry. On page 26 of this issue, Moore Stephens gives a detailed analysis of its latest three-month survey.

Overtonnaging – exacerbated by the slow-down in global consumption – is the main culprit.

‘Markets are at rock-bottom,’ one respondent told Moore Stephens, ‘and will stay there for some time because of the

large number of new vessels due to come into service. Older vessels and speculative investors, as well as low-grade operators, will have to disappear before the situation can start to improve.’

It is interesting to note that, while confidence in the shipping sector may be at an all-time low, many players in the bunker industry appear to be doing rather well.

In the United States, for example, NuStar Energy has reported that 2011 ‘looks to be the best year ever’ for the company’s bunker marketing group (see page 14).

Addax Bunkering Services SA (ABS) recently opened a new office in Hamburg (see page 8). Bominflot, which is in the process of being bought by Mabanaft, has launched a new barge in Valencia (see page 12). Rosneft has been steadily ramping up its bunkering fleet, with new tankers launched in Murmansk and Tuapse, and plans are being hatched to extend its reach into the ports of Russia’s Far East (see page 12).

400

500

600

700Houston 380

Singapore 380

Fujairah 380

Rotterdam 380

O N D J F M A M J J A S

600

700

800

900

1000

1100Houston MDO

Singapore MDO

Fujairah MDO

Rotterdam MDO


Marine Diesel Oil

PRIC

E $/

tonn

e

380 CST Fuel Oil

PRIC

E $/

tonn

e

400

500

600

700Houston 380

Singapore 380

Fujairah 380

Rotterdam 380


600

700

800

900

1000

1100Houston MDO

Singapore MDO

Fujairah MDO

Rotterdam MDO



Bunker Overview

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

ANUNCI TRAZ.pdf 1 03/03/11 12:09

In the Far East, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) is extending the bunkering facilities at both Colombo and the new container hub of Hambantota (see page 20). In Singapore, the Jurong Rock Cavern (JRC) underground storage terminal is scheduled to be completed sometime next year. India’s refining sector has grown significantly in recent years, with knock-on benefits for bunkering, and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd (HPCL) has a new black oil terminal at Vishakhapatnam (see page 22).

Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. (AMPNI), which recently introduced a new barge in Gibraltar, has cause for a double celebration. Firstly, the lawsuits that were filed against the company, its CEO and some of its officers have been withdrawn (see page 18). Secondly, its decision to move into Panama may turn out to have been a shrewd one. The Panamanian bunker market accounted for some 1.7 million metric tonnes (mt) of bunker fuel in the first half (H1) of 2011, up 18% on the same period in 2010 (see page 18).

As the authorities continue with the ambitious upgrade programme for the Panama Canal, all sectors of the local maritime community – including bunker suppliers – should see new commercial opportunities opening up.

In recognition of this, Petrospot Ltd, the publisher of Bunkerspot, will be holding its next Maritime Week Americas (MWA) convention in Panama on 21-25 May 2012 (see page 60).

As usual, the MWA Bunkers conference will be a centrepiece of the event, but the scope of MWA will be more far-reaching than in previous years – in order to do justice to Panama’s extensive maritime community.

New offerings will include MWA Ports, a major forum on port logistics, investment and developments, and MWA Shipping, an intensive one-day symposium on ship registries.

The week-long programme of conferences, seminars, workshops, training courses and parties will be frenetic, bursting with opportunities to meet clients old and new, learn about industry developments and, of course, do a spot of business.

380 IFO August September01-05 08-12 15-19 22-26 29-02 05-09 12-16 19-23 26-30

Rotterdam d 656 613 623 629 647 644 636 638 616Gibraltar d 682 637 639 636 668 665 654 658 649Piraeus d 676 630 627 635 655 653 650 655 633

Suez d 692 696 705 699 701 706 692 697 692Fujairah d 686 661 671 660 668 665 660 660 649Durban w n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Tokyo d 711 705 707 698 707 710 715 715 707Busan d 690 666 672 670 682 683 679 673 668Hong Kong d 674 644 645 655 674 663 659 659 650Singapore d 666 637 642 651 660 653 648 649 642

Los Angeles w 691 676 692 676 677 675 664 655 643Houston w 654 619 625 624 644 643 638 640 625New York w 668 633 634 632 657 658 653 662 643

Panama w 667 629 634 638 654 661 652 653 634Santos d 691 685 669 644 673 677 682 695 672Buenos Aires d 681 682 668 665 661 664 671 664 662

180 IFO August September01-05 08-12 15-19 22-26 29-02 05-09 12-16 19-23 26-30


Suez d 717 727 740 720 728 727 720 720 713Fujairah d 711 696 698 685 668 690 680 678 672Durban w 678 651 646 674 691 687 675 699 694




MDO August September01-05 08-12 15-19 22-26 29-02 05-09 12-16 19-23 26-30


Suez d 1121 1096 1091 1093 1088 1103 1087 1088 1088Fujairah d 1081 1078 1065 1060 1076 1063 1058 1061 1063Durban w 1090 1089 1101 1119 1161 1115 1129 1145 1145




KEY: d – delivered • w – ex-wharf • n/a – not available • mdo – marine diesel oil

GLANDER

Bunkerspot prices are compiled from the reports of the four brokers whose market reports have consistently proved the most reliable and accurate: Cockett Marine Oil Limited, LQM, Glander International Inc., and KPI Bridge Oil. Bunkerspot welcomes market reports from other sources for inclusion on its website www.bunkerspot.com


Moore Stephens tells Bunkerspot that

overtonnaging fears have sent shipping confidence

to an all-time low

Fears about overtonnaging were one of the main reasons that overall confidence levels in the shipping

industry fell to their lowest level for three and a half years, according to the latest shipping confidence survey from Moore Stephens. Continuing uncertainty about the global economy, and the rising cost of marine fuels, also emerged as major causes for concern in the survey, which covered the three month-period up to August 2011.

In August 2011, the average confidence level expressed by respondents in the markets in which they operate was 5.3 on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), compared to 5.6 in the previous survey in May 2011. This is the lowest figure recorded since the survey was launched in May 2008 with a confidence rating of 6.8, which remains the highest rating achieved thus far.

Confidence over the three-month period covered by the survey fell most noticeably on the part of shipowners, down from 5.8 to 5.1, the lowest owner rating recorded during the life of the survey to date. Confidence levels among charterers were even lower at 5.0, but the fall in comparison with the previous survey (from 5.4) was less than that for owners. Confidence on the part of managers fell from 5.8 to 5.6, while brokers held on to their already comparatively low rating of 5.1.

Geographically, confidence remained lowest in Europe, falling from 5.5 to 5.0, its lowest level since the survey was launched. Confidence in North America was down over the three-month period from 5.6 to 5.1, which is also an all-time survey low for the region. Asia, meantime, held steady at 5.7.

Overtonnaging was once again a recurrent theme throughout the comments from respondents.

‘Markets are at rock-bottom,’ said one respondent, ‘and will stay there for some time because of the large number of new vessels due to come into service. Older vessels and speculative investors, as well as low-grade operators, will have to disappear before the situation can start to improve.’

Another respondent noted: ‘The situation looks pretty grim, given the massive amount of over-ordering.’ A third hammered home the point: ‘The huge newbuilding programme will swamp any increase in demand.’

Rising fuel costs were also occupying the thoughts of respondents, with comments here ranging from, ‘Fuel costs will continue to rise and, with them, other operating costs’, to, ‘Fuel prices and operating costs are making life very difficult at the moment’.

The generally distressed state of global economies was uppermost in the minds of many. ‘With global currency markets all over the place,’ said one, ‘daily stability is what the market needs, but is not getting.’ Another pointed out: ‘We do not expect a recovery in the market in the next 12 months, given the slowdown of the global economy, particularly in the US, the European Union (EU) and China.’

Few could see a short-term solution to the difficulties currently facing the industry. The mood was singularly downbeat, the only variation among respondents being the amount of time they believed it would take for a sustainable recovery to get under way.

‘The market will have to suffer for a long period of time before it recovers,’ predicted one respondent, ‘mainly because of the tonnage supply versus market economy imbalance.’ Another said: ‘The burden on world markets, coupled with a large newbuilding delivery programme which will see large numbers of ships coming onto an already overtonnaged market over the next couple of years, means that it is difficult to see any improvement until at least 2013.’

One respondent in particular believed that any recovery would take much longer, pointing out: ‘Shipping markets cannot rise because owners and investors have built too many vessels. This, coupled with a weak economy and a depressed consumer market, is likely to mean a long, slow turnaround over the next five years.’

Expectations on the part of respondents of making a major investment or significant development over the next twelve months fell, on a scale of 1 to 10, from 5.6 to 5.1 – the lowest level since the same figure was recorded in November 2009. Geographically, expectations of making a major investment were down across all the main regions covered by the survey. European respondents rated the likelihood at just 5.0 (down from 5.5 last time), while in Asia the figure was down from 5.6 to 5.2. Latin America and North America, meanwhile, were down to 5.1 (from 6.0 last time) and 4.5 (5.5).

Having dropped out of the top three places for the first time in the last survey, finance costs were back this time as one of the top three factors which respondents overall expected to influence performance most significantly over the coming 12 months. Demand trends and competition, meanwhile, maintained their ever-present record in the top three.

Overall, 22% of respondents (down from 23% last time) cited demand trends as the most significant performance-affecting

Commercial Issues

Contact: Moore Stephens Web: www.moorestephens.co.uk

Hopes and fears



factor, while 17% (compared to 19% in May 2011) identified competition in this regard. Meanwhile, 16% of respondents, compared to 14% last time, opted for finance costs. Surprisingly, the percentage of respondents overall who identified fuel costs as having a significant effect on performance was down by 4 percentage points to 12%.

There was a marked reduction this time in expectations of an increase in finance costs, with 52% of respondents expecting costs to rise over the next twelve months, compared to 59% in the previous survey. The level of expectation of higher finance costs was down across all categories of respondent, and in all geographical areas covered by the survey.

One respondent said: ‘The continued lack of available finance, combined with an over-supply of tonnage and the European and US sovereign debt crisis, will have a severely depressing effect on freight rate values in the short term, although this will admittedly present opportunities to acquire tonnage at sensible prices.’ Some respondents expressed doubts about the future viability of smaller owners, with one pointing out, ‘Small companies operating traditional, knowledgeable and professional businesses will be forced to either join up with other owners to form big finance-guided companies, or else will be taken over by the force of big finance asset players. As a result, knowledge will be lost to the industry, and control of the market will rest only with certain selected big players.’

So far as the markets are concerned, there was a big fall in the number of respondents expecting rates in the tanker sector to increase over the next 12 months – down overall from 44% last time to the lowest level since February 2009, at 34%. While one respondent was ‘very confident that tanker rates would recover at some stage in the next one or two years and thereafter remain stable for two years’, many others were less optimistic. ‘There are simply too many tankers on the market,’ said one, while another pointed out: ‘Tankers are not looking good, and we can expect lay-ups and more bankruptcies.’ Elsewhere it was noted that: ‘Despite the evident slowdown in newbuilding deliveries in the tanker market, it is unlikely that a re-balancing of supply and demand will prevail during the next 12 months, particularly since the recent increase in spot market activity to record highs has not had the desired effect.’

It was a similar story in the dry bulk sector, where the number of respondents expecting rate increases over the next 12 months was down from 37% to 27%, an all-time low in the life of the survey. One respondent noted,

‘The downward trend in dry bulk shipping is unlikely to end for another 18 months, bearing in mind the imbalance created by the number of newbuildings coming onto the market and the deterioration in the economies of the US and Europe.’ Another pointed out: ‘The number of dry bulk ships is increasing dramatically, while the available cargoes are limited, so we cannot expect the market to improve over the next 12 months.’ Elsewhere it was noted that: ‘The huge dry bulk newbuilding programme will swamp any increase in demand.’

The containership market, meanwhile, saw the biggest shift in opinion. In May 2011, there was a 28 percentage-point difference between the numbers anticipating higher rates (42%) and those who thought that rates would go down (14%). Now, the gap has closed completely. Just 28% of respondents overall thought that rate increases were likely over the coming year – the lowest figure since November 2009 – and 28% expected rates to come down (compared to 14% last time). One respondent explained: ‘The number and size of container vessels continues to increase while available cargoes remain limited, so nothing is likely to improve over the next 12 months.’

Moore Stephens shipping partner, Richard Greiner, commented: ‘The drop in shipping confidence to a record low is a disappointment. But it has been coming. Given what has been happening in the world, and in the industry, confidence remained surprisingly high last year, but it has started to slip in 2011. Indeed, in many ways, it is back to the levels of two years ago.

‘Most respondents to our survey were adamant that we do not need any more ships, and indeed that we already have too many to carry the level of trade on offer. The survey also showed, however, a fall in the number of respondents who expected finance costs to increase over the coming year. So, despite all the difficulties, now is a good time to buy, for those with access to money and a sound business plan. No industry can grow without continuing investment.

‘The indications are that things could get even worse for shipping before they start to get better. There could be some nasty surprises, and some tough decisions, in the months ahead for operators and investors alike. But those who are in shipping for the long term will ride it out, and many will have had previous experience of doing just that. The international nature of the industry may be working against shipping at the moment, but it will once again prove to be its strength in less troubled times.’

Commercial Issues

‘Surprisingly, the percentage of respondents

overall who identified fuel costs as having

a significant effect on performance was down by

4 percentage points to 12%’

TOC Container Supply Chain: Americas 15-17 November 2011 | El Panama Hotel | Panama City, Panama

Redefi ning the Logistics Landscape

Bookyour place

now!

www.tocevents-americas.com

� Conference � Free Trade Exhibition� Free Seminars � Port Tour � Networking

Conference speakers include:

Sponsors:

Event Partner: Host Port: Primary Sponsor:

Associate Sponsor: Conference Sponsors: Global Sponsor: Supported by: Terminal Operator Partners:

Americas Partner:

Key Partner:

TOC CSC AM11 full page con ad_CS.indd 1 16/09/2011 16:33


Kevin Gilheany considers how new

safety regulations will affect the US barge and

towing industry

On 11 August, the US Coast Guard (USCG) proposed a new set of safety regulations for the

towing industry. The regulations are extensive and will change the United States towing industry forever. Towing vessels have been ‘uninspected vessels’; this means that while they have had a minimal set of regulations which applied to them, the USCG was not required by law to inspect the vessels for compliance and issue a Certificate of Inspection certifying that the vessels are in full compliance with all federal regulations.

In 2004, a towing industry group requested the USCG to add towing vessels to the list of vessels required to be inspected under the law. A short while later the law was changed and towing vessels were added to the list of inspected vessels. The USCG was then responsible for formulating a set of regulations which would apply to towing vessels. An advisory committee was established, made up of many different industry stakeholders, and the proposed regulations published in August represent the fruits of those efforts. While this process was initiated by a major towing industry group, there are many in the industry that do not agree with the idea and do not welcome the regulations with ‘open arms’. Industry stakeholders have a comment period, which ends on 9 December, in which they must post their comments and questions. The USCG will have to formulate responses to all comments and questions and will also make adjustments to the regulations as they deem appropriate.

In providing justification for the regulations, the USCG references some interesting studies with statistics such as: on an annual basis, towing vessel accidents are associated with 23 fatalities, 146 reportable injuries, 26 oil spills and $63.5 million in property damage. Some may find these statistics alarming, but one should keep in mind that there are approximately 5,000 towing vessels in the United States. Whether or not statistics such as those are adequate to justify the new regulations will remain a source of debate for some time to come.

Perhaps a more compelling reference to statistics is in the justification of certain aspects of the regulations based upon an analysis of causative factors. For instance, the USCG references a study which shows that equipment failures in propulsion and steering accounted for 30% of the major incidents. As a result there is an entire subpart of the new regulations entitled: Requirements for Towing Vessels that Tow Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk. This subpart requires those

vessels engaged in oil or hazmat service to have redundant systems for propulsion and steering. Presumably, towing vessels that do not meet the redundancy requirements of the regulations will have restrictions placed on their certificate of inspection, making it a violation of the regulations for such vessels to engage in those high risk activities.

According to the studies referenced by the USCG, human factors contributed to 54% of the major incidents, and as a possible solution for these human factors issues the regulation includes a safety management option. This regulation, unlike all others before it, offers operators the choice between a traditional USCG inspection programme and the adoption of a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS). This is perhaps a tip of the hat to the towing industry association’s widely accepted voluntary safety management system (SMS) which has been used for many years. However, the industry may find a significant difference in the enforcement of a voluntary SMS and of one required by regulation.

If a company opts for the traditional path, it will be issued with a five-year certificate of inspection by a USCG inspector and will see the USCG every year for an annual re-inspection. If a company chooses the TSMS, the company and its vessels will be audited by a third party auditor, and vessels will be surveyed by a third party surveyor, both working under an approved third party organisation who will issue a TSMS certificate on behalf of the flag. If this sounds similar to International Safety Management (ISM), that’s because it is. The third party organisation described in these regulations will act in a similar way as the ‘recognised organisation’ under ISM. These proposed regulations will accept an ISM Document of Compliance (DoC) and Safety Management Certificate (SMC) as an acceptable equivalent to the TSMS certificate.

The biggest obstacle for towing companies opting for the TSMS will be getting towboat captains to operate their vessels according to a set of written procedures. The big question

Health & Safety

Kevin Gilheany is the owner of Maritime Compliance International. He is a retired US Coast Guard (USCG) marine inspector, certified auditor, marine surveyor and crew endurance management expert.

Contact: Kevin Gilheany Maritime Compliance International Tel: +1 504 319 3229 Email: [email protected] Web: www.maritimecomplianceinternational.com

‘While this process was initiated by a major towing industry group, there are many in the industry that do not agree with the idea

and do not welcome the regulations’

Towing the line


Deepwater Horizon disaster.This will be an interesting comment

period and may result in significant changes to the proposed regulations. Only time will tell how it will all turn out in the final rule and in practice. Until then US towing companies should prepare for the worst and hope for the best and follow the advice I give to my ISM companies by following these three steps:

● involve captains and crews in revamping policies and procedures until they are realistic

and reflect the best practices for their vessels and operations. No more big fat books that sound good, but just sit on a shelf

● find creative ways to get captains and crews to actually look up and follow the written policies and procedures

● use a risk-based approach and only produce mandatory checklists for non-routine operations where the likelihood of error is great, and the consequence of error is severe.

This is going to be a major change for the US towing industry. Performance based regulatory programmes are extremely difficult to implement. Strong leadership is required by all stakeholders.

Hopefully, if anything good can come from the Deepwater Horizon disaster it will be to help to make the expectations of safety management systems implementation clear and consistent for all in our industry.

‘A subpart of the regulations requires those vessels engaged in oil or hazmat service to have redundant systems for

propulsion and steering’

remains: Is ISM a conceptual guideline to be referenced by the crew when they deem it necessary, or an instruction manual for mariners on how to operate a particular company’s vessels? For the most part, during audits the former is true and during accident investigations and litigation, the latter is the case. Nowhere has this issue become more pronounced than in the reports of investigation following the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico where, due to the many ISM failures, one branch of the USCG is calling for a ‘comprehensive investigatory assessment of the ISM code as used in the marine environment.’ The towing vessel regulatory project began many years ago, before any of the lessons learned from Deepwater Horizon were anticipated. It’s interesting to see the towing regulations offering a safety management system as a solution for reducing human factor causes in towing accidents in the wake of the

Towing the lineHealth & Safety


Does the global shipping industry have a genuine appetite for liquefied natural gas (LNG)

as a marine fuel? To a degree, this is a rhetorical question, but as the subject continues to be scrutinised in conferences, workshops, newspapers and journals such as this, there appears to be a growing sense of unease – at least to one interested observer – that all is not as it should be onboard the LNG-fuelled ship.

Over the past 18-24 months, parties within the shipping industry have stepped forward to demonstrate their products and regulatory and technological know-how in support of the ‘LNG as a marine fuel’ lobby. To all intents and purposes, they have pleaded their cause effectively, but, to use a metaphor firmly grounded in the pre-IT world, has the LNG record become stuck in a groove? Could it be that the same argument is being propounded time and time again by the same passionate advocates, but that, in reality, progress in making the switch to LNG fuel has been much slower than anticipated?

When LNG’s evangelists began extolling its emissions reducing properties, did the wider shipping world really understand that only a mere handful of vessels were actually plying their trade whilst fuelled by LNG? Given that the ferry and short sea shipping sectors in Northern Europe are currently the largest users of LNG as a fuel, how could the shipping world really think that LNG use could be scaled up to become a significant percentage of the global fleet by the time stringent emission regulations kicked in?

Could it be that experts in specific aspects of LNG handling and use are not working with each other or even talking to each other sufficiently? Is the shipping world waiting for bunkering rules and regulations to be formulated and approved, when, in fact, a good deal of regulatory support is already in place? Finally (or perhaps not) do the players in the traditional bunkering community actually realise that procedures, know-how and safety protocols have already been tried and tested by the LNG carrier sector, and a wealth of experience and know-how is available to be tapped and perhaps modified for marine fuel use?

Too many questions? Perhaps, but as one very committed player in the LNG fuel sector commented: ‘There are so many pilot projects, so many design concepts, but we need to look at what is achievable now.’ What follows is a broad brush approach to the obstacles still facing those participants who are prepared to switch to LNG as well

Lesley Bankes-Hughes considers whether

shipping is facing up to the challenges of LNG

as a consideration of where the shipping industry may be going astray in its discussions of the viability of LNG fuel. Perhaps the answer may require – apologies for the business jargon – more ‘joined up thinking’ in the LNG supply chain and a less head in the sand approach to LNG from the traditionalists in the bunker fuel sector.

While the shipping sector tussles with the use of LNG fuel, the fact is that other global commercial and domestic sectors have a very big appetite for it. World supply has increased by over a third in the past two years, and, according to figures from BP, demand grew by some 7.4% in 2010, which is the highest growth rate for 40 years. Supplies are sourced from Qatar, Malaysia, Indonesia, West Africa, the Caribbean and the Atlantic basin, and Australia is expected to move up the export rankings. The only European supplier is Norway, which also has reserves of shale gas.

Looking at demand, analysts say that the areas of highest demand are the areas of lowest supply – making maritime transportation a key link in the supply chain. Over the next five years, India and China are expected to scale up their LNG imports, although North America, which had been expected to be a major importer, has tempered its import appetite following the discovery of significant domestic shale gas reserves. However, the environmental impact of shale gas extraction has yet to be quantified and is causing ripples of concern throughout the ‘green’ lobby. Looking at availability of supply, the consensus seems to be that reserves of conventional LNG should last around 125 years, based on current and forward predicted levels of demand.

In any discussion about LNG as a marine fuel, one issue always comes to the fore: shipowners are simply not interested in turning to LNG. Over the past two years, conferences and workshops have given a platform for the case for LNG to be made, but representation at such events by owners is hardly impressive.

The environmental driver of the Emission Control Area (ECA) is certainly in place and the 2015 0.1% sulphur emission deadline is doing much to focus minds in the shipping industry on moving away from heavy fuel oil dependence. We all know the options on the table: a switch to expensive low sulphur fuels; adoption of abatement technologies; a switch to LNG. Shipowners publically admit that the 2015 restriction will be hard to meet, but seem reluctant to embrace the solution offered by scrubbing technology, for example, suggesting that installation is too expensive, there may be structural difficulties

LNG Update

Reality check

Bunkerspot LNG Asia: The Future Fuel for Shipping?A specialist conference that examines the potential for LNG to become a viable alternative to traditional marine fuels in Asia.

For more information contact: Nick Leader Petrospot Limited Tel: +44 1295 814455 Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com/asia2012


gas supplier told Bunkerspot that difficulties with couplings and hoses currently make bunkering too long a process.

Industry players often claim that regulations and standards for LNG fuel are needed before shipping will make a major shift towards its adoption. However, a reasonably good regulatory framework is either in place or under development and class societies have done much work on drafting guidelines for bunkering procedures. Elements of the IGF Code could be applied to LNG bunkering and ISO 28460:2010, which applies to conventional LNG terminals and the handling of carriers in international trade, does also provide guidance for offshore and coastal operations. The Society of International Gas Tanker & Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) published guidance earlier this year on ship-to-ship transfer for seagoing ships, which could perhaps be scaled down for smaller bunkering operations.

Work is also ongoing on the draft IGF Code. According to Turid Stemre, Senior Advisor, Legislation and International Relations, Norwegian Maritime Directorate, who is involved in drafting the code, it will involve a chapter on refuelling but will only look at the bunkering process from the receiving side, and does not address issues such as couplings and hoses. The code will look at tank location, as the challenge here is that tanks cannot be sited below accommodation areas.

The draft code could be completed and possibly approved by 2014 and would take around 18 months to implement. The code will, however, only apply to newbuilds, so should the shipping community put its LNG bunkering plans on hold? Definitely not, said Stemre. While there may be the possibility of future regulation that affects earlier vessels, there is nothing to stop the industry pressing ahead with implementing safe bunkering procedures.

Questions also remain to be answered about custody transfer and fuel measurement as well methane number differences in LNG – will they affect engine performance and what will happen over quality disputes when gases with different methane numbers are mixed in a vessel’s fuel tanks? These last issues will be addressed in future issues of Bunkerspot, but it seems that the shipping industry – across all sectors – has to ask itself some hard questions about its attitude towards LNG as a fuel – maybe the answers won’t always be palatable but at least carefully thought out responses to LNG’s undoubted challenges will help to shape a more realistic and inclusive approach to LNG bunkering.

and stability issues to resolve, and the environmental impact of waste water must also be considered.

However, in spite of the best efforts of engine makers, classification societies, and to some extent shipyards, owners seem curiously immune to the attractions of LNG. Clearly, the bulk of the global fleet currently operates on conventional fuel and retrofitting with LNG or dual-fuelled engines is prohibitively expensive. Until the current fleet has all been consigned to scrap there will not be a level playing field in terms of fuel choice. So a move to LNG is realistically only going to apply to the newbuild sector.

If political will is required to kickstart the LNG campaign, then the European Commission (EC) is being proactive and is providing funding for a number of initiatives under the T-ENT programme. As this issue of Bunkerspot went to press, partners involved in a number of European Union (EU) projects were about to gather in Gothenburg to discuss information sharing and ways of broadening collaboration on individual projects. However, all pilot programmes must come to an end, and funding from the EC or other national sources may not always be available. Who will take up the LNG cause then? For nations not involved in ECA regulations, emissions reduction is, of course, on the horizon but the sense of urgency is not there. At one recent LNG conference, a delegate asked if a case could be made for arbitrage deals between engine makers, gas suppliers and shipowners to encourage the use of LNG. It may have been an off the cuff remark, but this type of collaborative approach might have some merit.

There is no doubt that short sea shipping operators and ferry lines from Scandinavia to North America to Australia are showing commitment to LNG, and the case for its use on inland waterways also seems to be strong. Should we accept, therefore, that LNG will only ever be used by specific types of shipping and that for larger vessels it is not going to be viable or widely accepted? As a representative of a shipyard recently acknowledged, LNG use by container shipping is only at the concept stage and bringing it to fruition will take a very long time. Indeed, if LNG remains the option for short sea shipping only, is this necessarily a bad thing and why are we so anxious to take a ‘one fuel fits all’ approach?

Many proponents of LNG suggest the relatively low cost of the gas in relation to low sulphur conventional fuels must be an incentive for beleaguered shipowners faced with constantly rising fuel bills. As with every

superficially ‘good deal’, there is, however, a more complicated back story. For long-term contracts, LNG is currently indexed to the price of oil. If there is a decoupling of oil and gas prices in the future, who knows what will happen to the price of LNG. There are also different pricing mechanisms in different parts of the world as well as seasonality in pricing. Over the next five years, demand from China and India is expected to escalate and supply will tighten. Add unforeseen events such as the recent Japanese earthquake which prompted a massive surge in demand for LNG, and the future price of LNG could become more unpredictable.

For an owner, the installation of an LNG engine is unquestionably expensive: the cost of such an engine plus fuel tanks has been estimated to be around twice that of a conventional diesel engine and fuel tanks. Furthermore, larger LNG fuel tanks also impact on revenue earning cargo space. Whether to opt for LNG-fuelled or dual-fuelled engines is a decision that can have financial implications long after payback has been achieved on the initial expense of the propulsion technology as the jury is still out on which vessel will secure the highest second hand value. A pricing mechanism for fuelling ships has also to be defined, and this will have to include additional costs such as supply technology, regasification and, potentially, terminal costs.

Global and regional bunkering infrastructures also have to be put in place. Large established LNG terminals could be used for shore-based bunkering and the fact that a facility is already serving other demand outlets could have cost benefits for the bunkering process. However, some industry commentators believe that ship operators are going to be unwilling to go to a terminal to refuel. Reliance on a terminal as a single source supplier will also do little to create a competitive supply market place.

Safety concernsBuilding new smaller LNG terminals to serve regional shipping networks is also likely to create safety concerns and a ‘nimby’ reaction. However, these LNG ‘filling stations’ could be used by other users to create economies of scale from the outset. As with larger terminals, competition in bunker supply needs to be supported through, perhaps, the award of long term concessions. Port authorities also need to overcome their reservations about LNG storage. Logistical and safety issues such as bunkering whilst unloading cargo and passengers also need to be addressed, as does the turnaround time for LNG refuelling. One

LNG Update


Jan Kik tells Bunkerspot why certified bunkering measurement solutions have been adopted by

operators and suppliers to ensure correct

bunkering delivery

Traditional bunker measurement relies heavily on look-up tables and manual dips, as well as

laboratory tests to determine density measurements. These practices are labour intensive, inferential and can result in legal disputes between suppliers and customers with potential damage to business relationships.

Measurements are affected by changes to density and temperature, air entrainment, barge or vessel trim and/or list, adverse weather conditions and human errors. Historically, there has been a lack of trust in the quantities being transferred. In 2009, the number of official industry-wide global bunkering disputes was over 50,000, with complaints on shortfalls amounting to between 540,000 metric tonnes (mt) and 900,000 mt with a value of approximately $500 million.

Time-efficient bunkerings are vital for all stakeholders. Barge operators need a quick turn-around time to improve revenue and meet customers’ strict schedules. Port authorities need to avoid congestion in order to remain attractive and shipowners/operators need to stay on schedule to avoid costly delays.

With today’s bunker fuel costs amounting to between 50% and 70% of the total ship operating expense, even small inaccuracies in bunker measurements can have a major effect on operating costs. To ensure accurate and consistent measurement, the industry needed a transparent and traceable bunker measurement solution that meets international standards for custody transfer.

The process of marine bunkering presents challenges to any measurement device. Unlike gasoline or diesel fuel, the density and viscosity of heavy fuel oil (HFO) varies enormously and can even vary across a single bunkering as the fuel may stratify in the storage tank. Prices for bunkering are quoted in mt and invoices are settled based on the mt delivered. This means that measurement systems based on volume need a correction factor applied to determine the mass of the fuel that has been delivered. In addition, the fuel being delivered can become aerated, which will affect the volume measurement.

Consistent and accurateCoriolis flowmeters deliver consistent, accurate mass measurement. Emerson’s Micro Motion Coriolis meters for bunker measurement were first implemented by A.P. Møller-Maersk on a number of Maersk Line vessels in 2008. They were selected because they deliver consistent, accurate

mass measurement and have no moving parts to break, wear or risk performance drift. Emerson’s ELITE High Capacity Coriolis flowmeters are capable of handling flow rates over 1,500 mt an hour and have been tested with crude oil and other liquid and gas hydrocarbons in accordance with American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Gas Association (AGA) guidelines.

While the initial results from the Micro Motion flowmeters were good, further work was undertaken by Emerson, with agreement from Maersk and its partners (which included the VT Group), to develop a deeper understanding of the challenges of bunkering fluid dynamics. This included addressing the issues to realise a direct mass-based, independently accredited, bunkering custody transfer solution for two-phase HFO.

The development work also included actual testing where Maersk, VT Group and Emerson worked together to validate the performance of the system. As more systems are being installed in different types of vessel, Maersk and VT Group continue to supply information to Emerson – helping to resolve any installation or operational issues.

Meeting standardsWorking closely with Maersk, VT Group and other industry leaders in shipping, Emerson developed its bunker measurement system based on a Micro Motion ELITE Coriolis meter, Series 3000 transmitter with Marine Bunker Transfer Package, and bunker delivery ticket printer.

The Marine Bunker Transfer Package is a software application installed on a Series 3000 Transmitter that manages the specialised measurement, monitoring, and ticket printing functions.

Emerson’s Certified Marine Bunker Measurement Solution has been independently proven and certified by Nederlands Meetinstituut (NMi), the notified body for testing to the guidelines

Bunker Metering

Global ticket

Jan Kik is the Business Development Manager for Marine in Europe at Emerson Process Management, which helps businesses automate their production, processing and distribution.A division of Emerson, Micro Motion, invented the first practical Coriolis flow meter in 1977.

Contact: Jan Kik Emerson Process Management Email: [email protected] Web: www.micromotion.com/marine

‘To ensure accurate and consistent measurement,

the industry needed a transparent and traceable

bunker measurement solution that meets

international standards for custody transfer’

A) Practical Insights into Implementing New Engine Designs to Drive Forward Your Operational Efficiency Robert Loseth, Senior Vice President, Merchant, Rolls-Royce Marine Propulsion and Engines

B) Maximising Fuel Efficiency Through Incorporating the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) into your Marine Propulsion Strategy John Aitken, Secretary General, SEAaT

• Optimise your fuel efficiency: Gain the critical business intelligence you need to make your fuel decisions based on length of transit, vessel type, availability and quality of different fuel types

• Your supply and demand questions answered: Hear from the manufacturers on how they plan to meet demand for pioneering ship and engine technologies

• Maximise the energy efficiency of your existing fleet: Core Marine Ltd reveals the technical improvements and energy saving solutions you can apply

• Apply the latest abatement technologies to meet environmental targets: From scrubbers to water heat regenerators, evaluate maintenance and operational considerations

• Uncover the strategies for operational success: Benchmark your marine propulsion strategy with Teekay Shipping Ltd, Core Marine Ltd, V.Delta, Star Reefers UK Ltd and Exmar N.V.

Professor John CarltonPresidentInstitute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology (IMarEST)

Trevor HarrisonActing Chief ExecutiveThe International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA)

Dirk Carpentier Chief Technical OfficerExmar N.V.

Wolfgang HintzscheMarine DirectorGerman Shipowners’ Association (VDR)

Torsten MundtHead of Group Environmental Services, Strategic Research & DevelopmentGL Group

Giovanna ZitaNaval Architect and Marine EngineerV.Delta

John AitkenSecretary GeneralShipping Emissions Abatement & Trading (SEAaT)

Victor ArmstrongManager TQA Vessels OptimisationTeekay Shipping Ltd

Chrysanthos ChrysanthouFleet Manager and Technical SuperintendentCore Marine Ltd

Alex Gregg-SmythFleet Technical ManagerStar Reefers UK Ltd

For a 10% discount, please quote booking code: BunkerSpot

Optimise Fuel Efficiency, Meet Emissions Targets & Evaluate Next Generation Options

6th-8th December 2011, Hamburg

Marine Propulsion

Expert speakers includeBenefits of attending

Workshops: 6th December 2011

New Intelligence for

Strategies

Tel: +44 (0)20 3141 8700 Email: [email protected]

www.propulsionstrategies.com


unacceptable liability for us that can damage our reputation and can tie us up in legal disputes,’ said Yuri Ouweneel of VT Group. ‘Certified Coriolis flowmeters support the existing VT business model of accurate quantity measurements.’

The solution provides the crew and the company’s head office with real-time, accurate tracking of the HFO bunker deliveries, removing the need for manual soundings or calculations and enabling them to prove the quality and consistency of deliveries to VT’s customers.

‘Emerson’s flowmeters allow us to differentiate ourselves as a top-tier bunker service company, further improving our reputation while illustrating this value clearly to our customers,’ added Ouweneel.

SummaryThe certification of Emerson’s Micro Motion Marine Bunker Measurement Solution represents a major step forward for the industry. The measurement solution meets international standards for custody transfer and enables accurate, transparent and traceable HFO measurements that are accepted by fuel suppliers and customers alike. It provides real-time HFO bunker measurements that increase operational efficiency, minimise disputes, and provide automated electronic bunker delivery tickets.

Emerson’s Micro Motion Coriolis mass flowmeter technology ensures that the deliveries made and paid for by the end user are proven.

of the European Measuring Instruments Directive (MID) and Issuing Authority for the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). The Micro Motion meter meets the OIML standard R117-1 and the overall solution meets MID standard 2004/22/EC Annex MI-005.

Installed on a vessel, barge, or at a terminal, the Certified Marine Bunker Measurement Solution monitors the bunker delivery, reports final totals, and provides a ticket that can be used for custody transfer. This globally-certified bunker custody transfer system provides highly accurate, transparent bunker fuel deliveries that will minimise the number of disputes between barge operators and ship operators, while enabling operators to very accurately monitor fuel and improve operational efficiencies.

The Certified Marine Bunker Measurement Solution is capable of handling the density and viscosity variation inherent in HFO. It has been specifically designed to handle high-viscosity, aerated liquids and offers an overall accuracy within 0.5% of mass. The transmitter posts an alert when the level of entrained air reaches a pre-set limit, allowing the operator to take steps to reduce aeration and ensure accurate delivery.

Increased efficiency Emerson’s Certified Marine Bunker Measurement Solution has already been installed on supplier and customer vessels to provide highly accurate, transparent bunker fuel deliveries. In December 2010, the Maersk

Bulan became the world’s first cargo vessel to be equipped with Micro Motion’s Certified Marine Bunker Measurement Solution.

‘Emerson’s Micro Motion certified bunker solution allows us to remove uncertainty and improve transparency on custody transfer of fuel oil, which is our largest cost item, while at the same time increasing our operational efficiency,’ said Jesper Rosenkrans, Maersk Oil Trading. ‘This makes our investment in Emerson’s Micro Motion solution an attractive proposition.’

Suppliers are also seeing many benefits from the new technology and VT Group has successfully installed Emerson’s Micro Motion Certified Marine Bunker Measurement Solution on the bunker barge MTS Vlaardingen. Testing of the system on the Vlaardingen ran in parallel with the Maersk installation in 2008.

‘The possibility of quantity claims is an

Bunker Metering

‘Installed on a vessel, barge, or at a terminal, the

Certified Marine Bunker Measurement Solution monitors the bunker delivery, reports final totals, and provides a

ticket that can be used for custody transfer’

Wherever you need fuel, it’s not the end of the world. You can rely on us to deliver.

www.nynas.com

Wherever you are, rely on Nynas for fuel – whatever

kind of fuel you want and in whatever quantities

you need. Our own fleet of road tankers can deliver

seven days a week, suppliyng gas oil, light and medi-

um fuel oils, marine diesel distillate and marine fuel

ranging from 30 cSt to 380 cSt. Get in touch with us

at [email protected] or tel +44 151 326 2909.



As shipping faces increased emissions’ control measures, the process and challenge of

procuring marine lubricants takes on greater complexity and significance. In line with the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) MARPOL Annex VI’s regulations pertaining to sulphur oxide (SOx), the current standard requires maximum sulphur content for fuel of 4.5%, dropping to 3.5% next year and to a proposed 0.5% maximum by 1 January 2020. Sulphur content limits in the North Sea, English Channel, Baltic and US-Canadian Emission Control Areas (ECAs) will be reduced from 1% to just 0.1% in 2015, and most vessels in European Union (EU) ports already need to comply with EC Regulation 2005/33/EC, which limits sulphur content to 0.1%.

More ECAs are likely to be implemented soon. A US-Caribbean ECA has been approved and Japan is reported to be preparing an ECA application. Ultimately, there are only a few viable options enabling vessels to comply with SOx emissions regulations: use distillates and low sulphur products, fit exhaust gas cleaning systems or pioneer clean fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG). For the moment at least, low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) remains the preferred option, although it is not without its associated challenges: high cost, limited availability, quality issues, potential engine and fuel system damage, low viscosity, reduced lubricity and incompatibility of fuel mixtures. The list is long and all of these side effects can cause a loss of power and even shut-down, as we have seen off California in recent years.

These environmental challenges are progressively affecting increasing numbers of shipowners and operators. The North American ECA, effective from 2012, will impact more than 50% of international containership maritime traffic. By 2015, around 90% of the world’s container routes will involve ECA transits. If using LSFO to achieve compliance, vessels entering and exiting ECAs must undertake fuel changeovers. These often take longer than expected to accomplish – up to five hours and more – and switching to a lower sulphur fuel also requires a lower basicity cylinder lubricant.

To explain, good performance of the cylinder oil relies upon the ability to neutralise the acids of combustion, prevention of adhesive and abrasive wear, good spreadability, oxidation stability, and also detergency. With two-stroke engines, where the lubricant is

Patrick Havil looks at how using the right marine

lubricants can help shipowners manage the

change-over between low and high sulphur fuels

injected into the cylinder, neutralisation of the acids originating from the sulphur that is in the fuel and formed during the combustion process is also essential. A cylinder lubricant developed to match high sulphur content fuels cannot normally be used long-term with low sulphur content fuels and vice-versa. Talusia Universal is the only widely available cylinder oil with this ability.

Today’s original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) recommend either using Talusia Universal whatever the level of sulphur, or using two lubricants; switching from one oil to another, depending on whether the vessel is using a high or a low level of sulphur fuel oil. They advise using a BN 40 oil (low basicity lubricant) with a low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO), and a BN 70 (high basicity) lubricant with an HSFO. This is because if there is an excess of basicity in the combustion chamber, increased levels of calcium deposits can lead to bore polishing.

Burning high sulphur fuels increases the possibility of higher sulphuric acid production, leading to increased potential for corrosion. Operating conditions encountered when slow-steaming can also increase acid formation. It is therefore imperative that the cylinder oil is compatible with the range of sulphur content in fuel oil, as well as both regular and slow-steaming conditions for effective long-term lubrication.

‘Switching fuels when entering and leaving ECAs is headache enough for the crew, without the associated cylinder oil requirements,’ explains Roy Sugato, technical manager at tanker management and chartering company, Navig8. ‘The OEMs were telling us that unless the oil was changed within a certain period of time we would run the risk of scuffing.’

Sugato continues: ‘We’d heard about Talusia Universal, but repeated praise from associates in other companies already using the product prompted us to investigate in more detail. When we understood the significant

Marine Lubrication

Patrick Havil is the Marketing and Analysis Department Manager with Total Lubmarine.

Contact: Patrick Havil Total Lubmarine Tel: +33 141 35 38 70 Email: [email protected]

‘A cylinder lubricant developed to match high

sulphur content fuels cannot normally be used

long-term with low sulphur content fuels and vice-

versa. Talusia Universal is the only widely available

cylinder oil with this ability’

Change management


benefits and discovered that the price was comparable to our existing lubricant, we decided to adopt it immediately on all our vessels.’

Total Lubmarine’s Talusia Universal is the only cylinder lubricant compatible with fuel of sulphur levels from 0.5% right up to 4.5%, meaning that the requirement to switch lubricants to match different fuel sulphur levels is completely removed. It greatly simplifies the onboard operation because only one cylinder oil has to be managed. This in turn improves safety because there is no risk of mismatching the cylinder oil while changing over to a fuel oil with a different sulphur content.

Sugato explains: ‘Our technical crew was a little sceptical of the product at first, as there is no market equivalent, and the OEMs had advised that the lube must be changed to protect the engine. However, the technical information from Lubmarine, supported by testimonies from the various OEMs, reassured them. And close monitoring over the initial months demonstrated that the product negated all of the challenges we were facing.’

Risk management is one of the foundations of Navig8’s business and is a key factor in its decision-making process. Talusia Universal ensures that the engine is protected against corrosion – regardless of the fuel oil’s sulphur content or vessel speed. It reduces the potential for human error and the effort required to change cylinder oils at ECA entry and departure points. Talusia Universal also allows for the saving of storage space and eliminates the extra cost of installing additional cylinder oil tanks and pipelines.

Critical investmentCritical to reliable and consistent operations, lube oil requires significant investment. ‘Lubricants consume between 50%-60% of the technical budget, and as such this is not something we can afford to get wrong,’ says Sugato. ‘We are so confident of Talusia Universal that we use it on all 21 of our vessels.’

There are, of course, further variables to take into consideration. The use of traditional lower basicity cylinder lubricants within ECAs runs directly counter to the lubrication requirements for slow steaming or other conditions outside ECAs, which require the adoption of high basicity lubricants with specific performance requirements. A low BN lubricant is rarely adopted outside ECAs because it requires a higher feed rate, making it far from cost effective.

With rising bunker prices, slow steaming

looks set to stay. Most container vessels have cut cruising speeds from 22-25 knots to 18-20 knots and some have gone to as low as 8-12 knots, significantly increasing stresses and strains on a two-stroke or four-stroke marine engine.

Shipowners and operators are continuously looking for innovative ways to effectively manage the increasing challenges of succeeding in an industry that faces mounting environmental pressure. While the industry must work collaboratively to identify ways in which to reduce environmental impact, common sense dictates that this must be balanced with satisfying commercial demands. Indeed, economic viability endures as a key driver for ensuring environmental success in shipping. ‘Turn key’ solutions, therefore, come not only in the guise of emissions-reducing technology and approaches, but also the products and services that act as support mechanisms to ensure their commercial viability.

This is important because environmental benefits cannot be viewed in isolation; for example, slow steaming significantly reduces emissions and fuel costs alike. Unless properly managed, this ‘environmental solution’ can increase wear levels of critical machinery, negatively affecting maintenance and repairs, and ultimately impacting total operating costs. While ECAs are undoubtedly central to environmental protection, the associated switching of fuels and lubricants creates additional challenges for the crew, and unless properly managed, presents a real danger to vessel safety.

Regulatory complianceThe right choice of lubricants has become increasingly significant to environmental regulatory compliance. So instantaneous solutions that provide peace of mind when managing ECA transitions are understandably popular. Shipowners and operators are under pressure to deliver against current and impending SOx and nitrogen oxide (NOx) regulations, reduce bunker fuel costs through slow steaming and meet safety standards to protect both their workforce and the environment. At the same time, they need to maintain a clear competitive advantage through reliable, consistent operations and ensuring profitability. The industry therefore needs a new generation of marine lubricants that not only offer significant cost savings and better performance, but are also compatible with different levels of sulphur, and varying vessel speeds. Fortunately for the shipping industry, tomorrow’s lubricants are, in fact, widely available today.

Marine Lubrication

‘While ECAs are undoubtedly central to

environmental protection, the associated switching

of fuels and lubricants creates additional

challenges for the crew, and unless properly

managed presents a real danger to vessel safety’


Environmental Spotlight: Carbon Trading

Tim Gore of Oxfam argues that the time has come for a carbon price

for international shipping

The role of international shipping in the fight against climate change is fast gathering new

interest from politicians and media alike. That’s because pricing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international shipping could help to tackle the two big challenges following the United Nations (UN) climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico, last year – both driving new global emissions cuts, and generating billions of dollars for tackling climate change in poor countries. That’s a double dividend for the climate that leaders will find increasingly hard to resist.

In Cancun, governments recognised deeper global emissions cuts are needed to avoid catastrophic climate change. The international shipping sector – whose uncapped emissions are high and rising fast – must play its part.

Shipping already accounts for 3% of global emissions – greater than the annual emissions of Germany, and twice those of Australia – having doubled since 1990. A single ship can now emit more in one year than many of the small island developing states that are threatened by climate change. Without urgent action, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) projects that emissions could treble by 2050. That would likely blow any chance of keeping global warming below the 2°C target agreed by governments in Cancun, let alone the 1.5°C that is needed.

The fact that shipping is more efficient than other forms of transportation, or claims by some in the shipping industry that the efficiency per unit shipped is improving, cannot mask the sheer scale of shipping emissions or their frightening rate of growth. Doing nothing is simply not an option.

Earlier this year, governments made a start by agreeing a set of efficiency design standards for new ships in the IMO. But this can only be a first step. The design standards will result in emissions cuts by 2020 of just 1% below projected levels. It is clear that weak efficiency standards alone are not enough.

A carbon price for shipping will deliver the deep emissions reductions at the scale needed – applied either through a levy on bunker fuel or through the auctioning of emissions allowances under an emissions trading scheme. It is widely recognised that big potential emissions reductions of 30% below projected levels or more are available at zero or low cost. The political signal sent by the application of a carbon price is vital to overcome the market barriers that are

currently holding emissions reductions back. But the chance of a global agreement on

a carbon price for shipping depends on the use of the revenues it generates.

A new report from Oxfam and WWF shows that a moderate carbon price of $25 a tonne would raise the costs of global trade by less than 0.2%, or $2 for every $1,000 traded, but would generate $25 billion a year by 2020. To make a global agreement stick, those revenues should be used to compensate developing countries for the marginally higher import costs that may result, and to provide substantial new resources of at least $10 billion a year to the new Green Climate Fund. A smaller but still substantial portion of the remaining revenues, perhaps in excess of $1 billion a year, could remain in the maritime sector to fund research and development into cleaner shipping.

Some voices in the shipping industry have expressed their reservations about the proposal. But a global agreement depends on revenues being used in this way.

Since it has not been practically possible to attribute the emissions of particular ships to particular countries, a carbon price should apply to all ships equally. But since it is developed countries who must lead the fight against climate change – a principle known in the UN climate change negotiations as ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR) – developing countries must be compensated for the economic costs they may incur as a result.

The challenge of designing effective climate policy in an unequal world is ensuring that the poorest countries and communities are not adversely impacted. Since developing countries cannot effectively be exempted from a carbon price for shipping, they must instead be compensated from the revenues raised.

The Oxfam and WWF report shows that the economic costs for developing countries from a carbon price for shipping are likely to be felt as higher import prices passed on to consumers. The compensatory revenues should therefore be spent by developing

‘A smaller but still substantial portion of the remaining

revenues, perhaps in excess of $1 billion a year, could remain in the maritime sector to fund

research and development into cleaner shipping’

Carbon date

Tim Gore is the Climate Change Advisor with the nongovernmental organisation (NGO), Oxfam.

Contact: Tim Gore Oxfam Tel: +44 1865 47 3727 Web: www.oxfam.org.uk


Still there would be substantial new resources available for the maritime sector to invest in innovating new technologies to further reduce emissions from international shipping, and improve the efficiency of ship designs and operations. The shipping industry should start to explore priorities for spending sums in the order of $1 billion per year that could be available by 2020, if they back the speedy implementation of a progressive carbon price for the sector.

With the Group of Twenty (G20) finance ministers expected to look at similar proposals this year, it is increasingly less a case of whether a carbon price should be applied to international shipping, and more a case of when and how. It is vital that participants at the G20 and the UN climate conference taking place in Durban, South Africa on 28 November – 9 December urge the IMO to develop and implement a fair scheme without delay.

by generating revenues from their domestic industries. In Europe, the auctioning of emissions allowances to the power and manufacturing sectors under the European Union (EU) emissions trading scheme, or the new Australian carbon price, offer an ideal source of ready revenues.

Environmental Spotlight: Carbon Trading

country governments on boosting social protection spending to build the resilience of their poorest consumers against rising prices. Countries should be required to report on their use of such revenues to ensure transparency and that the poorest benefit.

The remaining revenues should be used to finance the fight against climate change – both in developing countries, and within the maritime sector. $10 billion should be directed to the Green Climate Fund, established in Cancun to direct resources for adaptation to climate change and emissions cuts in developing countries.

That would be a significant step towards the $100 billion that rich country governments pledged in Cancun to mobilise per year by 2020. But many other sources will be needed if the ultimate scale of needs is to be met. The aviation sector should equally be pressed to play its part, and rich countries should ensure the polluter pays at home too,

‘A new report from Oxfam and WWF shows that a

moderate carbon price of $25 a tonne would raise the costs of global trade

by less than 0.2%, or $2 for every $1,000 traded, but

would generate $25 billion a year by 2020’


As a fossil fuel constrained future rushes towards us, many of the world’s cargo owners are seeking

future-proof solutions to assist them in managing their global carbon reduction commitments. Land-based businesses have looked across their portfolio of assets and made all the easy carbon savings they can. They now have to look at large scale and costly re-engineering programmes to make more significant cuts. As a result, many multinationals are looking to their supply chain for opportunities for emission reductions and have identified shipping as a prime target.

Strategic developmentConventionally powered ships are ‘slow steaming’ to optimise performance from increasing bunker costs and the side effect is reducing emissions. Cargo owners claim these emission savings against their reduction targets. However, slow steaming impacts the arrival time of stock, inventory or raw materials and has the ultimate effect of reducing consumer supply. In recessionary times this warehousing at sea is, perhaps, an acceptable situation, but those businesses not so badly impacted by recession or looking forwards to a more robust future through

‘Bio-methane is chemically and physically interchangeable with LNG so, without any adaptations, the Rolls-Royce off-the-shelf engine can be used immediately to run on renewable energy’

strategic development are working out how to keep their supply chain emissions at low levels whilst speeding up supply chain. Any increases in carbon emissions, as a result of accelerating delivery times in conventional ships, means a financial hit in the cargo owner’s carbon accounts. To mitigate against this, global corporations are now actively exploring low carbon shipping solutions.

Ready-to-go optionsB9 Shipping offers a ready-to-go option to the shipping sector by combining existing, proven technologies. Using a hybrid sail and bio-gas propulsion system, B9 ships provide

Diane Gilpin of B9 Shipping argues that

carbon reduction commitments will

stimulate demand for ships powered by

renewable fuels

Environmental Spotlight: Renewable Fuels

Be kind, rewind

Diane Gilpin is the Development Director of B9 Shipping.B9 Shipping is a developer of 100% fossil fuel free hybrid sailing vessels.

Contact: Diane Gilpin B9 Shipping Limited Tel: +44 28 2826 3900 Fax: +44 28 2826 3380 Email: [email protected] Web: www.b9energy.com

‘Using a hybrid sail and bio-gas propulsion system,

B9 ships provide the extra tonnage required

without incurring further operational emissions and

without compromise in performance’


Marine Gasoil at all UK and Irish Ports through our exclusive supply network

Competitive Prices

Any Quantity

Delivery by rtw or barge

Contact Paul Wilson, John Donoghue or Claire Kilkenny

www.rivermarinefuels.com

MARINE GASOIL AT ALL UK & IRISH PORTS

River Marine Fuels Ltd46 Henry Street

Liverpool L1 5AYUnited Kingdom

Phone: +44 151 709 4149Fax: +44 151 709 0753

Email: [email protected]

reasonable operational speed for B9 ships will be around 12 knots (22 kilometres per hour). The Rolls-Royce engines are deployed should the wind be insufficient on any one journey to meet delivery schedules.

B9 Shipping is undertaking detailed feasibility studies with two separate clients seeking to urgently address issues relating to the volatility in bunker prices and related carbon challenges. Both projects involve relatively small scale ships of between 3,000 deadweight tonnes (DWT) and 5,000 DWT. Detailed route analysis, port evaluations and crewing requirements are being evaluated and set against current and future predictions for carbon, oil and LNG prices.

Cost effective solutionsEarly economic analyses indicate B9 Ships will deliver a cost effective and viable solution and we look forward to more detailed results being made public in due course.

the extra tonnage required without incurring further operational emissions and without compromise in performance.

Bio-gas, liquid bio-methane, is produced from food waste by B9 Shipping’s sister company, B9 Organic Energy, and qualifies as a second generation bio-fuel. Bio-methane is chemically and physically interchangeable with liquefied natural gas (LNG) so, without any adaptations, the Rolls-Royce off-the-shelf engine can be used immediately to run on renewable energy.

Detailed wind dataB9 Shipping, in conjunction with its Met Office partners, who provide detailed wind data and analysis on specific routes for B9 Shipping and its clients, predict that, on average, some 60% of B9 ships’ propulsion will come from the 21st century square rig design – the ‘dyna rig’.

Computer modelling indicates that a

Environmental Spotlight: Renewable Fuels

‘B9 Shipping is undertaking detailed

feasibility studies with two separate clients seeking

to urgently address issues relating to the volatility in bunker prices and related

carbon challenges’


The agreement back in July at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) establishing

an Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships is the first evidence of multilateral progress on bunker emissions since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed. It is an important step forward, but the EEDI is unlikely to impact new vessels until mid-2019. By then, ship emissions are expected to account for about 6% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Also by about that time, sulphur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from shipping in Europe will exceed all land-based European Union (EU) sources, which have made dramatic cuts over the past decades. By most measures, shipping still has a long way to go.

Even so, the IMO’s progress in agreeing the EEDI stands in marked contrast to aviation where the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) remains hopelessly divided over the question of global market measures to address aircraft emissions. ICAO also takes every opportunity to stoke the fires of those wishing to see the end of aviation’s entry into the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) next year, a modest measure which will mark the first concerted action to address aviation emissions. ICAO’s work on a CO2 standard for new aircraft – the aviation equivalent of the EEDI – is also besieged by an industry determined as ever to avoid regulation. At least most of the shipping sector took an enlightened approach to the EEDI.

It is against this background that Koji Sekimizu, the incoming IMO Secretary General, has to plot a course for the IMO to further develop work on options for a global shipping market based mechanism. Political reactions from key players who opposed the IMO’s decision on the EEDI should not be allowed to stand in the way of progress. The IMO vote was a decisive sign that if the conditions are right, global action on climate change is achievable. It was very clear during the final week of negotiations over the EEDI that the concerns particularly of small island states (SIDs) and least developed countries (LDCs) about impacts and technical cooperation are critical. If these issues can be resolved, as they were with the EEDI, then ideological arguments carry less weight.

The proposal to ensure that the interests of developing countries are met in any global measure by applying the principle of ‘no net incidence’ needs serious examination now. Annex 1 countries (the developed countries

committed to cutting emissions under Kyoto), plus the United States, need to consider this question very seriously in the run-up to the Durban climate talks in November. The question of the use of revenues is central to making progress on global solutions. Revenues can’t all go to industry as the principle of no net incidence makes clear. But should such countries as China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia be guaranteed no net incidence? Little time is left but without a clear signal from Annex 1 countries about impacts and revenues then calls for global action on bunkers will continue to ring emptily around United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference halls.

Two things in particular need to happen in the run-up to Durban and the next IMO environment meeting. The deafening silence of the shipping industry on the question of EEDI waivers needs to be replaced by clear statements that ships owned and built by developed country interests must be EEDI-compliant, whatever the flag of registration. EU and North American governments must reinforce this message. If the resale value penalty of not building compliant ships is so real as to make compliance compelling, then shipping chambers and associations should have no concerns about breaking their silence. Secondly, the EU and others must end their reluctance to spell out fully – and for the first time – how they see the interests of vulnerable countries being fully protected under any global market based measures (MBMs). The EU and ICAO made a mess of it by declaring at last year’s ICAO Assembly that all but 20-odd developing countries should be exempt from any global aviation measure. Sorting out the competitive issues that bedevil such a proposal has as yet hardly started.

Meanwhile, back in Brussels, the

Bill Hemmings of T&E gives a status report

on the EEDI and emissions cuts

Environmental Spotlight: EEDI and Emissions

Bill Hemmings is Programme Manager with Transport & Environment (T&E).Established in 1990, T&E is an environmental organisation campaigning on sustainable transport at the European Union (EU) level in Brussels.

Contact: Bill Hemmings Transport & Environment Tel: +32 2 893 0853 Email: bill.hemmings @transportenvironment.org Web: www.transportenvironment.org

‘The deafening silence of the shipping industry

on the question of EEDI waivers needs to be replaced by clear

statements that ships owned and built by developed country

interests must be EEDI-compliant, whatever the

flag of registration’

Better by design


SPOT BUNKER MARKETMABUX MARINE DIRECTORY

OIL FUTURES ONLINE

Register now - Two weeks free trial

Mabux Marine Directory features Suppliers, Traders and Brokers Worldwide

Real-Time & DelayedICE: Gas Oil, Brent Crude OilNYMEX: Light Crude Oil (WTI), Heating Oil

Our Spot Bunker Market Offers more than 350 ports and counting, with indications daily updated

Notice:

SPOT BUNKER MARKETMABUX MARINE DIRECTORY

OIL FUTURES ONLINE

Register now - Two weeks free trial

Mabux Marine Directory features Suppliers, Traders and Brokers Worldwide

Real-Time & DelayedICE: Gas Oil, Brent Crude OilNYMEX: Light Crude Oil (WTI), Heating Oil

Our Spot Bunker Market Offers more than 350 ports and counting, with indications daily updated

Notice:

Notice:

1. Rotterdam shows the usual Market once a day indications.

2. Rotterdam is connected to the ICE’s price variations as published on our website.

Your ONE-STOP Website for Your Bunker Dealswww.mabux.com

Meanwhile the EC and the EU need to take some decisions soon. The objective can’t be a 3%-4% cut in EU emissions by 2020, which is what the EU ETS will deliver for aviation. The 40% and 60% transport sector targets will require some bold forward thinking. And industry needs to consider more deeply its preference for a levy. Even if the levy price were set at today’s carbon price (which would render it about as effective as an ETS), how long – and at what price – can it be expected that offsets will be available for purchase as a way of offsetting emissions? Such practices are already limited in the ETS. The task for the EC will be to find a measure or set of measures that produce emission cuts and promote substantial in-sector reductions at an acceptable cost to and at a pace on track to reach its 40%-60% target. The regulator stands empowered. Just the mere question of what is the right thing to do stands in the way.

European Commission (EC) is moving into third gear as regards examining possible options for an EU shipping measure. The backdrop to this is a self-imposed target of reducing EU transport emissions 60% by 2050 with shipping emissions being cut by at least 40%. The EC has also made clear that largely, if not entirely, these are emissions to be cut within the EU – in other words, offsets don’t count. The IMO Greenhouse Gas (GHG) working group has already done a good deal of work on the question of in and out of sector reductions. An ETS or levy will deliver out of sector reductions but very few in-sector cuts. The EEDI will generate in-sector reductions of between 10% and 20% by 2030, though that timeline will have now been pushed out by the implementation waiver.

Transport & Environment (T&E), Seas at Risk and the Clean Shipping Coalition have proposed that the recent

practice of slow steaming be institutionalised through some form of speed regulation. And at last some sensible debate around this question is starting. There is a growing realisation that it might not make sense for the world’s container fleet – the largest single contributor to ship GHG emissions – to race around the globe at 26 knots just because 20% of the goods on board are time sensitive. Aviation and the road freight industry introduced differentiated service levels decades ago.

Fuel efficiencyCan there be any good reason why oil or bulk cargoes shouldn’t be transported in the most fuel efficient way? Slowing down produces immediate in-sector emission reductions, and as many operators have recently seen, fat profits to match. We await the fruits of the Ulysses ultra slow ships project with great interest.

Environmental Spotlight: EEDI and Emissions


‘In their efforts to “green” the chain, freight forwarders increasingly opt for cleaner ports and methods of transport,

and choose ports closer to the final destination’

Ankie Janssen argues that regulations on

sulphur emissions could present new opportunities

for port authorities

Now the date of the stricter 2015 sulphur regulation for the Emission Control Area (ECA)

is coming closer, it is time for the North West European and Baltic port authorities to consider the impact for the port and bunkering operations, prepare their regulatory regimes accordingly and take advantage of the opportunities that will emerge.

For most ports, the regulation has the consequence that emissions in the port area will diminish. This is an obvious advantage since most ports in Europe are situated in heavily populated areas. Residents prefer a cleaner and quiet port. The emission reductions are necessary to sustain the ‘licence to operate’ of the port.

Shipping can prepare for this stricter sulphur regulation with three key solutions: technology, liquefied natural gas (LNG) or distillates. For most ports the introduction of LNG will have the greatest impact. Over the last two years, more and more port authorities and safety organisations have been looking into the safety regulations – or the lack of safety regulations – for LNG-powered ships in port areas. This is also the case for the Rotterdam Port Authority (PoR), since the Port of Rotterdam is situated at the North Sea, one of the ECAs.

The aim of the PoR is to enhance the competitive position of the port as a logistics hub and world-class industrial complex – not only in terms of size, but also quality. The core tasks of the port authority are to develop, manage and run the port and to maintain a speedy and safe service for shipping.

More than 70,000 people are employed in the Rotterdam port area, and more than 400 million metric tonnes (mt) of goods are handled annually. At the quayside, this means that imports and exports are transported by 37,000 ocean-going vessels and 100,000 inland vessels a year. The Port of Rotterdam is situated in a heavily populated area.

Although well known as a container port, the Port of Rotterdam is an even larger energy port – especially with regard to activities involving oil, gas and coal and the entire value chain that surrounds these products. In terms of throughput, Rotterdam is the number one energy port in Europe.

The Port of Rotterdam is one of the

biggest bunker ports of the world. Total bunker volumes were reported as 11.9 million mt during 2010 (this figure includes lubricants sales), compared to 12.17 million mt during 2009. According to a study undertaken by the Port of Rotterdam, around 70% of the bunkers are supplied to container ships, making this sector the mainstay clientele of bunker suppliers in Rotterdam. In the container segment that stays within the ECA, nearly 700,000 mt of heavy fuel oil (HFO) was bunkered in Rotterdam in 2010.

There was a large increase in volume for supplies of marine gasoil (MGO), which grew by 72% in 2010 compared to 2009. This is most likely a direct result of EU regulations that entered into force at the start of 2010, requiring ships at berth in EU ports to use fuels with a maximum of 0.1% sulphur content.

So why does the PoR support the policy for cleaner fuels? There are of course the obvious safety and environmental issues, but we should also consider another aspect of the upcoming regulation, namely the new commercial opportunities.

Today, Rotterdam is an attractive hub for all cargo flows. Throughput will increase in the future as a result of the land extension Maasvlakte 2, as will the size of ships. The efficiency of ship handling, inland shipping and service providers need to improve, nautical safety must remain guaranteed and the environmental impact of shipping must be reduced. Until recently, freight forwarders (both senders and receivers) were more or less invisible in the port – but they are now increasingly leaving their mark on the logistics chain. The driving forces for this trend are efficiency and costs, but also reliability and sustainability. More and more freight forwarders are reducing the carbon dioxide (CO2) footprint of their products,

Environmental Spotlight: SECA Update

Ankie Janssen is Business Developer Gas & Power with the Port of Rotterdam.

Contact Ankie Janssen Port of Rotterdam Tel: +31 10 252 1230 Web: www.portofrotterdam.com

‘Shipping can prepare for this stricter sulphur

regulation with three key solutions: technology, liquefied natural gas

or distillates’

Opportunity SOx


and also taking into account the footprint of the entire chain. In their efforts to ‘green’ the chain, they increasingly opt for cleaner ports and methods of transport, such as an increase in transport by barge and rail, and they are choosing ports closer to the final destination.

The Port of Rotterdam is in an excellent position to meet these demands, but it must also actively focus on the greening of the port and its ecological processes. Supporting clean fuels for shipping is an integral part of this challenge.

There will be a growing need for clean fuels with low sulphur content and lower CO2 emissions.

In the future, refineries in Rotterdam are expected to produce an increasing share of low sulphur transportation fuels, such as low sulphur diesel, petrol and marine fuels. Right now the refineries in Rotterdam are already producing about two million mt a year of low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO). In addition, more clean fuels will be added to the refinery process, such as synthetic fuels produced from natural gas or biocrude produced from algae. Extra demand will result in extra imports. The new import terminal for LNG, called Gate, makes Rotterdam an LNG entry point for North Western Europe. It also means that large scale supply of LNG is available in the port area.

So, both for environmental as for commercial reasons, it makes sense to support more stringent environmental legislation for fuels. There are, of course, a few buts: the industry must have time to adjust to the changes; the ‘level playing field’ should not be disturbed; and the infrastructure and technologies should be available.

So what can the PoR do to help the

industry make the change? A number of activities can be mentioned:

● we adapt the safety regulation in the port area which is needed for gas-fuelled ships. The PoR wants to have the adapted regulation in place in 2012 and strives for standardisation in European ports

● the sector is stimulated to take measures through, for example, incentives and differentiation of the port dues such as the Environmental Ship Index (ESI). From 1 January 2011, the cleanest sea-going (e.g. LNG-fuelled) vessels in the ports of Rotterdam, Dordrecht and Moerdijk receive a discount of on average 5% of the port dues. It involves vessels which score highly on the ESI. This is a new international standard for emissions from sea-going vessels. Vessels which perform better than the legal requirement are rewarded. The more ports and ships that use the ESI, the more incentive there will be to sail more cleanly

● we formulate demands for businesses that want to do business in the port. By 2030 (as imagined by our draft Port Vision 2030), only the cleanest trucks will be welcome, only electric locomotives will be used on the port railway, inland barges will adhere to CCR phase IV standards and ocean shipping will use the cleanest engines (Tier III). By using alternative fuels for ocean and inland shipping (such as LNG) and optimising sailing times – sometimes in combination with slow steaming for ocean shipping – additional reductions of emissions can be achieved.

By adopting this broad approach, the logistics chains with the lowest ecological footprint will be running via Rotterdam by 2030. We see this not only as a sustainability ambition, but also as a sound commercial proposition.


‘The new import terminal for LNG makes Rotterdam

an LNG entry point for North Western Europe. It

also means that large scale supply of LNG is available

in the port area’

FREE to attend

Exhibition & Conference

Register for FREE

Register now for free www.intermodal-events.com/bs

Host Port: Supported by: Organised by: Join us on:

CONTAINERS IN MOTIONCONTAINER TRANSPORT ACROSS ROAD, RAIL AND SEA

After the most successful show in its history Intermodal Europe returns with another unmissable line up. Make sure you don’t miss out on the event that brings the intermodal industry together.

Intermodal Europe’s largest ever event programme:• Over 120 leading global exhibitors • 50 FREE conference sessions• The Container Park featuring the latest container and reefer innovations• NEW The Tiger Project - EU approved Conference• NEW Industry recognised accreditation for all delegates • NEW Baltic Transport Journal Conference• Networking Bar and Internet Lounge

Intermodal EUR11 Visprom full page ad_BS.indd 1 03/07/2011 12:43


In 2006, the first Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA) came into force in the Baltic Sea followed

in 2007 by the North Sea and English Channel SECA, creating a continuous low sulphur fuel burning area of water around the shores of a large part of northern Europe. Pursuant to the 2008 revisions of Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention, SECAs became ECAs and on 1 July 2010 the maximum permissible sulphur content of fuel burnt in an ECA was cut to 1% from the original maximum of 1.5%.

In very simple terms, ships entering or operating within an ECA have to use fuel oil and marine gasoil (MGO) with a maximum sulphur content of 1% by the time they enter the ECA until after they have left. Annex VI also includes provision for compliance using alternative means of emissions abatement, most obviously a combination of high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) with exhaust gas scrubbing. This is a promising technological solution and its various promoters have justifiably high hopes of success but it has yet to make a significant impact in commercial terms.

MARPOL and its Annexes are products of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), an organ of the United Nations (UN). As MARPOL is an international convention, its enforcement (including the enforcement of Annex VI) is the responsibility of sovereign states – in particular those states, known as state parties, that have ratified the convention and the annex. In very simple terms, state parties are expected to introduce into their domestic law whatever legislation is necessary to enable them to enforce the provisions of the convention. This can be a convoluted process. The United Kingdom, for example, passed the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Act 2006 which amended Section 128 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 enabling the introduction of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008 that finally, to a very large extent, incorporated the provisions of Annex VI into English domestic law.

Within the UK, there is then a body of legislation that gives effect to Annex VI and it falls broadly to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) to enforce it through Port State Control inspections, although the regulations are drafted more widely than this. The process in most other states is broadly similar. Sometimes states will interpret international conventions into domestic law, whilst on other occasions they will adopt the convention provisions word for word. These varying approaches can lead

to the provisions of international conventions being applied differently from state to state.

The European dimensionThere are two European Union (EU) Directives that are directly relevant to the sulphur content of marine fuels; usually referred to in the aggregate as the EU Sulphur Directive, their full titles are:

● Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 – Relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC

● Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the European Council of 6 July 2005 – amending Directive 1999/32/EC.

The purpose of the two Directives is to reduce sulphur levels in liquid fuels in use in the EU generally, thereby improving air quality. Where the scope of the Directives overlaps with Annex VI, it is intended to be implementory, not competitive. Unfortunately, there is an element of mismatch but proposals published in July by the European Commission (EC) are intended, in part, to address this.

EU Directives prescribe the end, not the means; it is up to individual Member States to enact the domestic legislation necessary to implement the Directives into national law, of which the UK legislation is an example. As with international conventions, when states implement EU directives into their domestic law there is scope for differences to arise.

In addition to covering the Annex VI provisions, the Directives impose further limits on sulphur levels in fuels. The limit for passenger-carrying ships on regular services to or from any EU port is 1.5% and for ships in port and on inland waterways throughout the EU it is 0.1%. These provisions are subject to a few exceptions of very limited impact which are not of any great practical significance.

Like Annex VI, the EU Sulphur Directive includes compliance provisions directed at suppliers, and – as with the Annex VI provisions globally – there is not a great

Trevor Harrison looks at what progress is being

made in Europe on cutting sulphur levels

Level playing field


‘Reducing ships’ emissions will produce the greatest cost benefit of any of the emissions

reductions options presently available

within the EU’

Trevor Harrison is a maritime arbitrator and commercial mediator with over thirty years’ experience as a barrister and in-house lawyer. He is the author of Legal Issues in Bunkering, published in July by Petrospot. Since August, he has also been the part-time Acting Chief Executive of the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA).

Contact: Trevor Harrison Email: [email protected]


deal of evidence at the present time that EU Member States have been particularly active in complying with their obligations to ensure that suppliers fulfil their low sulphur obligations conscientiously. Such enforcement action as there has been appears to be targeted largely on ships.

Much of the wording of the Sulphur Directive indicates that Member States’ activities should be directed towards facilitating the availability of low sulphur fuels in order to improve air quality throughout the EU, rather than penalising those who are failing to use them. However, the cynical view of many observers is that the eyes of Member States’ enforcement authorities have focused on visiting ships rather than resident suppliers. A lack of reliable information makes it difficult to determine whether this is a fair assessment and, in any event, such data as are available support the prevailing view that in most EU ports, with some notable exceptions, very little effort is directed towards Annex VI and Sulphur Directive compliance at all.

Given that both Annex VI and the Sulphur Directive are implemented through local state legislation, it can be difficult to anticipate how a ship is likely to be treated in a given EU port. Even well placed local sources of information cannot always be relied upon to provide reliable advice and guidance.

Current requirements in European watersThat many people involved in the business of bunkering find the present situation within the EU confusing is hardly surprising, but in theory the various requirements of Annex VI and the EU Sulphur Directive are straightforward.

The maximum permissible sulphur content of fuel that a ship may burn is:

● 4.5% on the high seas (reducing to 3.5% from 1 January 2012)

● 1% within ECAs ● 1.5% for passenger-carrying ships on

regular service to or from EU ports not in an ECA (this limit was intended to correspond with the original1.5% ECA requirement and is recognised to be an anachronism), and

● 0.1% for ships in EU ports and on EU inland waterways.

In all cases the lowest limit prevails so that, for example, a passenger ferry sailing from an EU port outside an ECA would be able to use 1.5% fuel on the high seas but would have to switch to 1% fuel before it entered the ECA. Whether as a matter of practicality it would be worth the ferry carrying two separate grades of low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) is another matter.

However simple the theoretical position may be, the EC has accepted the legitimacy of the concerns expressed by those involved at the operational level that the present discrepancies are an unnecessary impediment to commercial activity and unnecessarily complicate enforcement.

The new EU proposalsOn 15 July, the EC published a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions proposing a revision of the Sulphur Directive.

The extensive documentation includes a lengthy impact assessment, summary impact assessment, review of the present situation, proposal, draft directive, explanatory memorandum, press release and some questions and answers for ordinary EU citizens.

Further SOx reductionsIf one starts with the press release and the questions and answers document, it is clear that the focus of the proposal is the need to achieve further reductions of sulphur oxide (SOx) and particulate pollution in the air of EU Member States. In the view of the EC, land-based sources of SOx, particularly road transport, have been massively reduced and now it is the turn of maritime sources to make a fair and proportionate contribution to emissions reduction. Put another way, reducing ships’ emissions will produce the greatest cost benefit of any of the emissions reductions options presently available within the EU.

Finding the detail in the rhetoricExtracting the detail from amongst the public relations rhetoric, legislative detail and procedural requirements of the EU decision making process shows the intention to align EU requirements with those of the revised Annex VI with particular emphasis on the economic benefit to the EU of promoting equivalent abatement technologies.

There is a forecast economic benefit to the EU of the proposed changes in terms of improved health and reduced mortality of between three and 13 times the costs expressed as billions of Euros.

The key proposals are to: ● incorporate the 2008 Annex VI revisions

relating to sulphur into the Sulphur Directive

● align the Directive with the Annex VI provisions, allowing a broader range of


‘Lower levels of harmful exhaust emissions are good for the physical

and economic health of all European citizens and all responsible businesses, but it is

essential that the rules are applied

fairly, consistently and effectively’


equivalent emission abatement methods, complemented with additional environmental impact protection provisions

● adopt the Annex VI Appendix VI fuel verification procedure

● restore the link between ECA sulphur limits and EU passenger ships on regular services by introducing the 0.1% limit in 2020; this is five years after the ECA limit reduces to 0.1% in 2015; the delay is said to be necessary in order to avoid problems of fuel availability

● develop non-binding guidance on sampling and reporting to improve the present level of sampling, estimated at less than one per thousand ships and, if this does not improve matters, consider the introduction of binding rules. The underlying intention of this provision is to improve compliance levels

● align references and definitions with the latest international technical standards

● clarify the definitions of passenger ships on regular service and port areas

● consider and possibly seek to mitigate any adverse consequences of the changes.

Although the possibility of proposing additional ECAs within EU waters is considered, the conclusion is that it is not something that the EC should be pursuing at present. The final point made is that, unlike the IMO, the EU has an enforceable compliance regime; this means that incorporating the current and future Annex VI provisions into the Sulphur Directive will greatly increase the level of supervision and observance and counter any tendency towards evasion that the stricter standards might otherwise exacerbate.

Welcome and overdueThe Commission proposals are most welcome and long overdue if one has regard to the extent of industry based lobbying for


alignment that has been maintained since the 2008 Annex VI revisions were agreed. Hopefully, the proposals will be swiftly agreed by the other decision making organs of the EU and take effect at an early date.

It remains the case that present levels of Annex VI and Sulphur Directive supervision and enforcement in EU ports remain unduly low overall, wildly variable from port to port in terms of what is inspected both in terms of ships and shoreside facilities, and uncertain in terms of outcome where infringement is discovered.

Lower levels of harmful exhaust emissions are good for the physical and economic health of all European citizens and all responsible businesses, but it is essential that the rules are applied fairly, consistently and effectively so that the compliant majority are not disadvantaged by the cost-cutting activities of those who seek to save a few dollars by deliberately choosing not to comply.


There is a huge regulatory and policy agenda at both the International Maritime Organization (IMO)

and the European Union (EU) affecting the shipping industry. Until a couple of years ago, the main focus was on safety and security issues but now the spotlight has turned to environmental matters.

The global ferry industry carries as many passengers per year as the commercial aviation industry but it remains a small player and often an afterthought in the world of international shipping. How can a small organisation like Interferry expect to have influence in this?

Consultative statusInterferry started down this road in 2003 by obtaining consultative status at the IMO. It became apparent very quickly that the task was overwhelming for a single staff member, so we steadily built up our capability to support the CEO’s attendance. Among the highlights were:

● Interferry members joining our delegation at IMO meetings – notably Stena Line, P&O Ferries, Wärtsilä, Liferaft Systems Australia and Beurteaux

● Interferry obtaining associate membership in larger shipping associations with a major IMO presence, such as the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) and the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS)

● The establishment of an Interferry regulatory committee to coordinate our input – with representation from Danske Faerger, Rederi AB Gotland, Stena Line, P&O Ferries, Wärtsilä, Attica Group, BC Ferries, Elliott Bay Design Group and STX Finland.

Over the past eight years, one of the most important lessons I have learned about the regulatory process is that, in order to have influence, it is critical to be involved at an early stage of the discussion on new or amended regulations. The final decisions are taken at the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) but it is very difficult to make changes at that stage – the real work begins in the nine sub-committees and their various working groups, correspondence groups and experts groups.

Interferry has learned this lesson the hard way. Two years ago, we were tracking progress on the new sulphur regulations. At MEPC it appeared that there was a consensus for a 0.5% limit in the Emission Control Area (ECA). The matter was referred to the Sub-

Interferry’s Len Roueche looks at how the ferry

industry is meeting the challenge of

environmental regulations

Committee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels’ Safety (SLF) for final review and came back as a 0.1% limit. Despite strenuous objections and lobbying at MEPC, it was approved. We have fought ever since to delay, modify or overturn that ruling to no avail. If you are not there on the ground floor your chances of success are very limited.

At the MEPC meeting in July a decision was made to adopt the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for all new ships as the first concrete step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

Working with other nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and a few national administrations, we were able to convince IMO that the EEDI formula was not a suitable measure for determining the energy efficiency of passenger ships, roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) and roll-on/roll-off passenger (ro-pax) vessels. We managed to win a reprieve of two years in which to propose an alternative methodology.

Market-based measuresThe next big environmental issue on the agenda at the IMO is market-based measures (MBMs) to further reduce GHG emissions. Interferry is going to be in a much better position to influence the outcome in this case. We have just opened a Brussels office with a full-time specialist for EU and IMO activities in a bid to strengthen the ferry industry’s voice on maritime policy and regulations. Johan Roos, director of sustainability at Sweden’s Stena group since 2006, has joined Interferry as executive director of EU and IMO affairs. He will be supported in his work by the Interferry regulatory committee.

The MBM debate will be a particularly difficult one for Interferry to directly influence. The issues faced by ferries which operate in the short sea sector are likely to be very different from deep sea operators. One of the main questions facing the IMO on this issue is whether to support a bunker levy or emissions trading as the preferred MBM. We were caught a bit off guard when the ICS came out in favour of a bunker levy before we had even had a chance to fully consider the options. As it turns out, we weren’t the only ones caught off guard. The UK Chamber of Shipping stated publicly that the ICS decision was premature and they have published objective manuals on both options in order to keep the door open for a thorough international debate. Interferry will be studying these documents carefully in the run up to the next MEPC meeting in the spring of 2012.

Ferry viewEnvironmental Spotlight: Industry Case Study

Len Roueche is the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of Interferry, the global association for the ferry industry.Interferry currently has 220 members (representing approximately 500 individuals) from 34 countries.

Contact: Johan Roos Executive Director, EU & IMO Affairs Interferry European Office Rue Ducale 67/B2 1000 Brussels Belgium Mob: +32(0)479 676984 Email: [email protected] Web: www.interferry.com


The beautiful venue of Hasselbacken in Stockholm, said to have inspired the famous 18th

century Swedish poet and musician, Carl Michael Bellman, was the location of the 31st Women’s International Shipping and Trading Association’s (WISTA) International Conference and Annual General meeting. However, the bucolic charms of the tranquil island of Djurgården belied the level of energetic and informative debate which the event’s theme – Leadership – Opportunities for the Future – engendered within the elegant painted wooden hall of the conference venue.

It soon became clear to delegates that the issue of a global shift in supply and demand patterns – and, by extension, trade routes – as well as the inescapable problems of environmental responsibility and sustainability were going to be the key drivers of the meeting and against which the concept of successful leadership would be repeatedly measured.

For Efthimios Mitropoulos, Secretary General of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), this was his farewell WISTA conference before he steps down from his post at the end of the year, and his keynote speech certainly gave delegates food for thought.

In his opening remarks he presented a concise and useful snapshot of the ‘new world map’ in which ‘China has become the new global economic powerhouse, then others (like Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, the Republic of Korea, Indonesia, South Africa and Malaysia) are rapidly emerging’.

‘A new world order is defined,’ stressed Mitropoulos, ‘and the new world map has been drawn to reflect it.’ He also emphasised that the world, and the shipping sector in particular, must adjust to the investment strategies of the new mega commercial powers. The African continent is already the focus of breathtaking levels of Chinese investment, with economists predicting a 70% surge in funding from China to $50 billion by 2015. India is also wasting little time in seizing trade opportunities in Africa, with credit lines already being extended for trade partners.

How a global shift in commerce will impact shipping is not easy to quantify, said Mitropoulos, ‘but the voice of Asia in shipping as a whole is becoming clearer and stronger than ever before’.

Assessing the outlook for the global shipping sector, Mitropoulos highlighted the problem of new tonnage oversupply ‘as

WISTA’s 2011 conference proved to be a valuable

forum for the exchange of ideas on shipping’s key

trends and concerns

growth in the supply side of shipping is, it seems, set to outpace growth in short-term demand’.

Will this new world order place new demands on leadership? Broadly, no, said Mitropoulos, as ‘leadership is leadership and always has been’. It is, he said, ‘not change that challenges leaders and tests leadership as much as uncertainty’. The adoption by parties to MARPOL Annex VI in July of the first ever mandatory global greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction regime for an international industry sector was, said the Secretary General, ‘an example of true collective leadership’ within the IMO.

The other speakers at the conference picked up the baton from Mitropoulos and provided some enjoyable, interesting, and often highly individual perspectives on the event’s key topics.

Carl Johan Hagman, CEO of Hoegh Autoliners, also pointed to the dominance of the Asian market, and gave the harsh, but no doubt realistic assessment that many shipping companies – particularly in Europe – may struggle to survive over the next two to three years. In another vigorous panel discussion looking at the demands on leadership for sustainable development, Resianne Dekker, Manager Environment, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, also gave the somewhat chilling prediction that: ‘The green port will survive; the others will die!’

A series of workshops covering diverse issues such as recruitment, women as board members and system safety, also included a useful one on new fuels and system design, moderated by Jill Söderwall from the Port of Gothenburg. Karin Andersson, Professor at Chalmers University of Technology, gazed into the ubiquitous crystal ball and provided a snapshot of alternative marine fuels, such as liquefied biogas and bio-based methane. However, she sounded a note of caution over the levels of energy required to manufacture synthetic fuels.

In a fast-paced and highly entertaining presentation, DNV’s Head of Market Intelligence, Jakub Walenkiewicz, game some thought-provoking statistics about overtonnage, scrapping, and freight rates. He also pointed out that economic theoretical modelling has a habit of ‘failing to predict sudden changes in the market’.

After talk of shipping’s economic woes, the award of Sweden’s WISTA Woman of the Year to Maria Libäck, Business Director at DB Schenker Sweden, did much to dispel the gloom, and the conference ended with a call on WISTA members to gather for the 2012 conference in Paris.

New world orderEvents


the development of a bunkering protocol for West Africa.

The keynote address will provide an overview of oil and gas activity in South Africa, delivered by Warwick Blythe, CEO and Executive Director of the South African Oil & Gas Alliance (SAOGA). This will lead into an examination of the growth of South Africa’s offshore industries and look at the region’s ports and offshore bases. It will compare and contrast the host country with other regions on the African continent. Dave van der Spuy, Manager Resource Evaluation of Petroleum Agency SA will look at the players currently involved in oil and gas exploration and production. Alison Futter, Chairman of the Offshore Petroleum Association of South Africa (OPASA) and Group Tax Manager of PetroSA, will look at developments in the sector in South Africa. And Angelo Manzoni of Universal Africa Lines (UAL) will explain how Saldanha Bay is in the process of becoming a major offshore supply hub for southern Africa.

A session on supplying bunkers offshore will look at operational imperatives, foremost of which are safety, product quality and reliability – guaranteeing to be in the right place at exactly the right time. It will assess the benefits to be gained by offering high quality service and adapting to change. Capt. Dave Colly, Regional Manager (Western Region,) of the South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) will focus on how

a supply centre such as Cape Town might benefit by opening its doors to the offshore industry, and also by targeting passing traffic associated with that sector. Tim La Fontaine, Operations Specialist in the Excise department of the South African Revenue Service, will provide a legislative update on the duties levied on the offshore supply of marine fuels.

Incorporating the supply of the offshore oil and gas sector but also looking at the standard fare of refuelling tankers, container, dry cargo and other vessels plying their trade around sub Saharan Africa, a session

Cape Town, the oldest and most historic city in South Africa and regularly heralded as one of the

most beautiful cities on earth, will play host to a very different Oil & Shipping Africa conference in December. After two highly successful events in Ghana examined the huge potential of the West African bunker market, the focus now shifts to the fast-growing but still largely unexploited offshore oil and gas sector.

Cape Town has become one of Africa’s leading centres for the offshore oil and gas industry and for the many services that supply it. This year’s conference will therefore focus sharply on that sector and in doing so will not only deliver a unique programme but will also attract a whole new body of delegates from outside the mainstream bunkering community, all eager to learn more about this growing and undoubtedly lucrative new market.

Oil & Shipping Africa will cover delivering fuel to the oil rigs, drill ships, floating storage, survey vessels and supply ships that ply their trade offshore sub-Saharan Africa and will look also at shore support from regional ports and offshore bases. The conference will investigate the impact this activity has on logistics and infrastructure. The programme will cover important regional issues including local regulations, supply and demand, prices, and emerging markets. It will also offer an update on the progress towards

Llewellyn Bankes-Hughes previews Africa’s leading

bunkering event

Events

Offshore Africa

Contact: Llewellyn Bankes-Hughes Managing Director Petrospot Limited Tel: +44 1295 814455 Mob: +44 7768 574 430 Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com


The event will close with a session on global issues, from environmental legislation, shipping market activity and their impact on bunker markets worldwide. Speakers include Trevor Harrison, Acting Chief Executive of the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA).

Events

focused in bunkering in Africa will provide an overview of bunkering in areas including Ghana, Nigeria, Angola, Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique, before focusing on East African operations. Often considered a very difficult, dangerous and sometimes lawless region to lift bunkers, West Africa nevertheless continues to grow in importance, with Ghana’s new oil discoveries the latest boost to shipping in the area.

Several papers offered in this year’s Oil & Shipping Africa cover some of the ‘bigger’ African issues, such as progress on the creation of a viable protocol for bunkering in West Africa and bunker quality issues throughout the continent. A highly topical paper by Derick Boonzaaier, General Manager – International Business, and Jakkie van Jaarsveld, Operations Director, both of Cape Town-based OGMI International, will look at protecting against maritime crime and piracy in East and West Africa.

Oil & Shipping Africa will this year be preceded by two bunker training courses. The Oxford Bunker Course (Advanced), previously presented in Singapore and more recently in Houston, is designed as a progression from the well-established introductory Oxford Bunker Course. It integrates every aspect of bunkering (operations, technical, commercial, environmental and legal) and includes detailed case studies and syndicate work. It is intended for those with at least two years’ experience of bunkering.

For those less experienced in the commercial world of bunkering, IBIA’s Southern Africa branch will offer the one-day IBIA Basic Bunker Course

As with all of Petrospot’s bunkering events, Oil & Shipping Africa 2011 will also feature some very special networking occasions, including an evening cocktail reception, a gala dinner and a spectacular sundown beach party.

Reiter Petroleum Inc.Reiter Petroleum Inc.Reiter Petroleum Inc.Les Pétroles Reiter Inc.Les Pétroles Reiter Inc.Les Pétroles Reiter Inc..................................................................................................................................................................................Reliability. Professionalism. Integrity.Reliability. Professionalism. Integrity.Reliability. Professionalism. Integrity..................................................................................................................................................................................

Make the ‘REITER’ choiceMake the ‘REITER’ choiceMake the ‘REITER’ choice

Your

Prin

cipal

Wor

ldwid

e Bun

ker S

uppli

ers

CONTACT US WITH YOUR INQUIRIES

625 du President Kennedy AveSuite 900, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1K2

Tel: (514) 878-2563 Fax: (514) 878-3463

Email: [email protected]

www.reiterpet.com

QuinnOil®

Panama Canal

Physical supplier at the Panama CanalAlso available ex pipe Rodman Naval Station

Our new executive offices in Panama City:

Molon Tower Building, 7th FloorAquilino de la Guardia StreetPanama City, Rep. of Panama

Telephone: (507) 265 2634 (507) 265 1277Fax: (507) 265 3727

Email: [email protected]: www.quinnoil.com


Fax: +44 1295 814466 Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com

APRIL

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: World Ports & Trade Summit2-4 April, Abu DhabiContact: Turret Seatrade Events Tel: +44 1206 545 121 Email: [email protected] Web: www.worldportsandtrade.com

SINGAPORE: The Oxford Bunker Course (Advanced)23-25 April, Singapore Petrospot will be organising its well-established course during Singapore Maritime Week.Contact: Nicholas Leader, Petrospot Tel: +44 1295 814455 Fax: +44 1295 814466 Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com

MAY

UNITED KINGDOM: The Oxford Bunker Course14-18 May, OxfordThe Oxford Bunker Course is a highly intensive five-day residential training course covering technical, operational, commercial, financial and legal aspects of bunkering. Designed for newcomers to the business and for those who may already have some experience, it is often oversubscribed, so early booking is essential. It is widely acknowledged as the best bunker course in the world and is renowned for its social activities.Contact: The Petrospot Events Team Tel: +44 1295 814455 Fax: +44 1295 814466 Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com/oxford

PANAMA: Maritime Week Americas 201221-25 May, Panama Organised by Petrospot, this event is entitled Building the Ports of Tomorrow.A week-long series of key maritime conferences in Panama, comprising MWA Bunkers (the largest annual bunkering event in the Americas); MWA Ports-Intermodal (a major forum on port logistics, investment and developments); MWA Shipping (an intensive one-day symposium on ship registries); plus related bunker and port workshops, training courses and seminars; and a world-class exhibition.Contact: The Petrospot Events Team Tel: +44 1295 814455 Fax: +44 1295 814466 Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com/panama

JUNE

GREECE: Posidonia4-8 June, AthensContact: Posidonia Exhibitions SA Tel: +30 210 4283608 Fax: +30 210 4283610 Email: [email protected] Web: www.posidonia-events.com

Events

Events Diary OCTOBER

UNITED KINGDOM: Management of Air Emissions from Shipping Seminar10-11 October, LondonContact: Informa Tel: +44 20 7017 5510 Fax: +44 20 7017 4745 Email: [email protected] Web: www.informaglobalevents.com/event/airemissions

UNITED STATES: The Oxford Bunker Course (Advanced)10-12 October, Houston, TexasThe Oxford Bunker Course (Advanced) is a highly intensive three-day training course, led by Nigel Draffin and taught by a highly professional team of lecturers. It integrates every aspect of bunkering and is designed for students with at least two years’ experience in bunkering.Contact: Osei Mitchell, Petrospot Tel: +44 1295 814455 Fax: +44 1295 814466 Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com/houston

SOUTH KOREA: LNG Carriers24-26 October, SeoulContact: IBC Asia Tel: +65 6508 2401 Web: www.ibc-asia.com

NOVEMBER

SPAIN: IBIA Annual Convention2-4 November, BarcelonaThe International Bunker Industry Association Annual Convention is back in Europe for 2011.Contact: Charlotte Egan, IBIA Tel: +44 2380 226 555 Fax: +44 2380 221 777 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ibia.net

PANAMA: TOC Americas 201115-17 November, Panama Contact: TOC Events Worldwide Tel: +44 20 7017 7019 Fax: +44 20 7017 4987 Web: www.toc-events.com

SOUTH AFRICA: Oil & Shipping Africa 201128 November - 2 December, Cape TownAfter two highly successful forays into West Africa, Petrospot turns to South Africa for the third annual Oil & Shipping Africa.The conference and training course programmes now attract many African delegates, in addition to a growing number of foreign companies eager to learn about bunkering opportunities in this part of the world. This year’s event will also feature the Oxford Bunker Course (Advanced).Contact: Osei Mitchell Tel: +44 1295 814455 Fax: +44 1295 814466 Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com/africa

GERMANY: Intermodal Europe 201129 November – 1 December, HamburgContact: Sophie Ahmed, Informa Tel: +44 20 7017 5112 Fax: +44 20 7017 7818 Web: www.intermodal-events.com/bs

CHINA: Marintec China29 November - 2 December, ShanghaiContact: Stella Fung, UBM Asia Ltd Tel: +852 2827 6211 Fax: +852 3749 7347 Email: [email protected] Web: marintecchina.com

DECEMBER

UNITED KINGDOM: Platts Tanker Economics5-6 December, London This event focuses on the need for managing competitiveness in a volatile market.Contact: Platts Web: www.platts.com

GERMANY: New Intelligence for Marine Propulsion Strategies6-8 December, Hamburg Optimise fuel efficiency, meet emissions targets and evaluate next generation options.Contact: Hanson Wade Tel: +44 20 3141 8700 Email: [email protected] Web: www.propulsionstrategies.com

JANUARY

SINGAPORE: The Oxford Bunker Course (Advanced)9-11 January, Singapore This course covers every aspect of bunkering and integrates operations, technical, commercial, environmental and legal issues so that students learn how these are all inter-related in the real world.Contact: Nicholas Leader, Petrospot Tel: +44 1295 814455 Fax: +44 1295 814466 Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com

SINGAPORE: Petrospot Marine Surveying9-11 January, Singapore This brand new set of three Petrospot training courses is designed to raise the level of competence and understanding among marine surveyors.Contact: Matthew Conisbee, Petrospot Tel: +44 1295 814455 Fax: +44 1295 814466 Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com

SINGAPORE: Bunkerspot LNG Asia – The Future Fuel for Shipping?12-13 January, Singapore As LNG is increasingly seen as a viable - and green - option as a marine fuel, this highly-focused and timely seminar investigates what the industry now needs to do to take this idea forward, examining the supply chain requirements and market preparedness for this exciting ‘new’ bunker fuel.Contact: Nicholas Leader, Petrospot Tel: +44 1295 814455


Networking

On the move... EuropeHenny de Goede has relinquished his role at Bominflot Ltd in London. Paul Millar, now Managing Director of Bominflot Ltd, London, has also taken over the responsibility for the Bominflot office in South Africa. Tel: +44 20 8315 5412; Mob: +44 77 7544 9122; Email: [email protected].

Evandro Cavalli has joined KPI Bridge Oil as a bunker trader in its London Office. Mob: +44 771 512 5920; Email: [email protected].

Addax Bunkering Services S.A. (ABS) has opened an office in Hamburg, managed by Chris Venema who works alongside Tim Boegel and Susanne Tennert. Contact: Addax Bunkering Services Germany GmbH, Zirkusweg 2, 20359 Hamburg. Tel: +49 40 30 23 968-0; Fax: +49 40 30 23 968-20; Email: [email protected].

Sebastian Clausen, formerly with German shipowner Reederei Claus-Peter Offen GmbH & Co KG, has joined Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft für Mineralöle mbH & Co. KG in Hamburg as a bunker trader. Tel: +49 4035 0930; Dir: +49 40 3509 3167; Mob: +49 17 2160 9452; Fax: +49 40 3509 3116; Email: [email protected].

Fritz Jakob Fredriksen has joined DNV Petroleum Services in Hovik, Norway, as a Principal Consultant. A former chairman of the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) from 2007-2009, Fredriksen joins DNV from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Tel: +47 6757 8117; Mob: +47 9952 4943; Email: [email protected].

Maria Blicher has joined A/S Dan-Bunkering Ltd’s head office in Middelfart, Denmark as a bunker trader. Tel: +45 6441 5401; Dir: +45 6421 5430; Mob: +45 2962 0009; Fax: +45 6441 5301; Email: [email protected]. Pooja Sangani, previously working in Dubai, has also joined in Middelfart as a bunker trader. Mob: +91 98 205 68097 (India); Mob: +97 150 72 68097 (Dubai); Email: [email protected].

OW Bunker Copenhagen has relocated to

Strandvejen 58, 2900 Hellerup, Copenhagen, Denmark. Tel: +45 7015 1504; Fax: +45 7015 0745; Email: [email protected].

Chris Stoddard, former Managing Director of Chemoil Europe BV in Rotterdam, has joined the Noble Group. Mob: +44 797 959 1634; Email: [email protected].

Dutch maritime design and technology firm DK Group Netherlands BV has announced the appointment of Noah Silberschmidt as joint managing director, alongside Katia Kardash. Tel: +31 20 708 4555; Email: [email protected].

Dan-Bunkering (Monaco) S.A.M. has appointed Christoph Riecken as a bunker trader. Tel: +377 9777 5401; Dir: +377 9777 6328; Mob: +377 6 8086 9301; Fax: +377 9777 5301; Email: [email protected]. Jean-Guillaume Reymondier, previously with Atlantic Energy in Paris, has also joined as a bunker trader. Dir: +377 9777 6326; Mob: +377 6 4062 7659; Email: [email protected].

Mediterranean Bunker Services has appointed Eftihia Kalaitzis as bunker sales manager. Tel: +30 210 429 7440; Mob: +30 6948 400 697; Email: [email protected].

After 12 years as General Manager of Praxis in Greece, Jenny Tsagli has joined Brilliant Maritime Services in Piraeus as Marketing Manager. Tel: +30 210 410 1280; Mob: +30 694 700 0031; Email: [email protected].

Mideast and Africa Christopher Tuason has joined OW Bunker as a bunker trader in Dubai. Tel: +971 4448 9124; Mob: +971 55 498 7304; Email: [email protected].

Praxis Energy Agents S.A. has relocated its headquarters from Athens to Swiss Tower, Suite 16-03 Jumeirah Lake Towers, P.O. Box: 215503, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Tel: +971 4435 8500; Fax: +971 4435 8599; Email: [email protected].

Greek bunker and lubricant trader Alexandros Margaritis has joined International Bunkering in Dubai. Tel: +971 4 437 1727; Mob: +971 50 557 3160; Email: [email protected].

The Caribbean Seahas more energy than you can imagine.

We commercialize the highest quality of fuel and lubricantsin the Caribbean Sea industry from Colombia and Panamathrough pipelines, trucks and barges.

www.terpel.com

marinos.pdf 1 3/16/11 12:21 PM

Asia PacificJohn Phillips, previously the Global Credit Manager with Chemoil, based in Singapore, has launched his own marine consultancy business, Awyr Las Pte Ltd (ALP) located at 93 Yishun Street 81, #06-03 Orchid Park Condo, Yishun, 768451 Singapore. Tel: +65 9451 4098; Email: [email protected].

Dave Zheng has joined A/S Dan-Bunkering Ltd Shanghai and will be the manager of the company’s office in Beijing. Tel: +86 21 6135 2700; Mob: +86 137 1661 6184; Email: [email protected].

Clipper Oil has opened an office in Singapore, headed by new recruit Zheng Tian, formerly with Singapore-based Hin Leong Trading. Contact: Clipper Oil, 2 Mistri Road #18-04, Singapore 079624. Tel: +65 6646 5367; Fax: +65 6491 5128; Email: [email protected].

Chemoil has appointed Jacob Gay, formerly of Arcadia, Projector and Shell, as head of trading to review and develop its fuel oil business in East Asia and the Middle East. He replaces Teng Chee Keong who, after four years, has left the company by mutual agreement. Tel: +65 6880 8220.

AmericasGreg Araujo has joined KPI Bridge Oil as a bunker broker and trader in its Miami office which has now relocated to larger premises at 401 E. Las Olas Blvd, Suite 1421, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mob: +1 954 684 9373; Email: [email protected].

Adrian Tolson, formerly Chemoil’s VP of Sales & Marketing, has joined the Noble Group as Marketing Director of the Oil Liquids Department to assist in the global development of its bunker operations. He is based at Noble Americas Corp. in Stamford, Connecticut. Tel: +1 203 326 8371; Mob: +1 415 420 0767; Email: [email protected].

ObituaryOn 2 October, Greek bunker trading company Mediterranean Bunker Services announced the untimely deaths of trainee trader Stathis Katsaitis and his twin Michalis, following a car accident.

sailing close to the wind: exploring energy options...in previous years – in order to do justice...

Documents