In-depth | EMISSION REGULATIONS Emission impossible?


Could the forthcoming 2015 SECA sulphur cap lead to an energy crisis in Europe, exacerbating the effects of the global downturn? Don Gregory, Azurtane director, speaks to Offshore Marine Technology.


O n 1 January 2015, the


International Mar i time Organization (IMO) proposes,


the amount of sulphur content in fuel allowed in the designated Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) of the North Sea, Baltic Sea and English Channel, will be slashed from a current level of 1% to 0.1%. Te adoption of the revised Annex VI, Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention, we have been constantly reminded since 2008, represents a step in the right direction towards a cleaner, greener shipping environment in Western Europe. No doubt this might prove to be the case – but the amended sulphur cap also has the potential to usher in a catastrophic energy crisis across this part of the continent. That is


the opinion of concerned


industry observers, who have raised serious questions regarding the ditching of heavy fuel oils (HFOs), in favour of cleaner marine diesel and marine gas oil equivalents, vessels calling at


for the SECAS. There


is particular concern regarding the availability of these latter, low-sulphur – and undeniably more exorbitantly- priced – alternatives. For instance, Don Gregory, director


of the Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association and fuel monitoring solutions provider Azurtane, tells Offshore Marine Technology that the amount of fuel burnt in the North Sea and North American Emission Control Areas


(ECAs) currently rivals that


consumed by road vehicles in the major EU countries. At


the moment, road


vehicles within EU accession countries are expected to use fuels with sulphur contents of 10 parts per million (ppm), with 50ppm being the maximum allowed in certain EU countries – in comparison, the 0.1% sulphur content of most marine diesels constitutes 1000ppm. “Refineries


14


Complacency to blame? At this stage, one is tempted to ask why this potential


scenario has not


been debated in depth at the numerous IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) meetings before. For Gregory, a former senior employee of


Te end result could be severe diesel


shortages in Europe, with sectors such as retail heavily affected, as road users struggle to obtain increasingly costly and scarce supplies. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we were looking at costs of £2.50 per litre in 2015,” Gregory adds. “Refinery investments are typically conducted in five-year cycles, and they will definitely be taking note of developments in Europe regarding the SECAs.” If such a scenario were to play out,


he says, we can even expect to see the shipping industry maligned by the media and blamed for what Joe Public might perceive to be a hogging of resources and an inability to have planned properly for the 2015 sulphur cap.


in Europe are feeling the squeeze, in a highly competitive market,” says Gregory. “Given the fact that supplying diesels to the marine industry will involve less purifying processes, and, subsequently, less associated costs, this could prove to be a far more commercially attractive market for the refineries to focus on.”


“Refineries may target the maritime market, pushing prices up and limiting supplies for road users”


BP, the answer is a worrying high degree of complacency within the maritime industry. “We’ve known that the sulphur cut was coming for over a decade now,” he recalls. “In 2002, BP hosted a high-profile event in London, UK, titled the Emissions Trading Conference, for around 50 people, drawn from EU regulators, IMO representatives, engine manufacturers and ship owners. We put the issue on the table, to discuss what sort of mechanisms could be used to ease the process of change, and how to measure and mitigate emissions.” Despite an enthusiastic reception –


indeed, the BP conference was to lead to the formation of the Shipping Emissions Abatement and Trading (SEAaT) organisation within the same year – very little was done across the industry to engage with the points that had been raised. For instance, one concept to emerge


during the 2002 event was that of emission credits. Take, for example, a three-strong fleet, comprising two new vessels,


fitted with sulphur-treating


scrubber technology, and an older vessel. It could be the case, Gregory argues, that the new vessels would, by demonstrating environmental compliance, be able to accumulate credits (awarded either by the IMO or EU) which could then be transferred to the older vessel. Tese credits could enable the older


vessel to bypass the need for costly scrubber technology installation for the last few years of her working life, thereby ‘rewarding’ the operator for compliance via the new vessels, and easing the demand for low-sulphur diesels. Te emission credit concept, however,


was never really debated seriously, Gregory feels. “We came up against resistance from a number of industry bodies, with the International Chamber of Shipping giving us the impression that we were treading on their toes – although SEAaT has always been a single-issue group,” he says.


Offshore Marine Technology 1st Quarter 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32