Bunkerworld (Unni Einemo) reported on the 13th of October the potential impact of sulphur legislation on ports within Emissions Control Areas (ECA) and the UK Chamber of shipping’s opinions that this could cause cargo to be re-routed to non-ECA ports. Additionally the article comments that the European Commission is considering mechanisms to ease the implementation of the 2015 ECA 0.1% sulphur limit.
Oceanox has seen no evidence of a willingness on the part of legislators to delay implementation. This being the case, willingness to invest in one of the technical solutions available to them is something that operators in the ECA must consider. When set against the cost of compliance by the use of marine gasoil (MGO) the capital investment required to install exhaust scrubbing equipment is paid back in a timescale measured in months rather than years. This can then create a significant cost advantage over un-scrubbed competitors and indeed those competitors choosing to re-route via sub-optimal logistics routes from non-ECA ports.
There are a number of credible sources for scrubbing equipment from household names to start ups and systems are operational at sea. Suppliers stand ready to form one solution in a suit of options for ship operators.
Bunkerworld.
Ports in ECAs 'vulnerable' to loss of business By Unni Einemo October 13, 2011
The UK port of Felixstowe is inside an ECA. A huge increase in shipping costs when the sulphur limit in Emission Control Areas (ECAs) drops to 0.10% in 2015 could cause loss of business for ports inside the regulated zone, according to a UK Chamber of Shipping official.
Ports in the Baltic and the UK will be "especially vulnerable" as bunker fuel prices could rise by 87%, David Balston of the UK Chamber of Shipping told the Port Strategy news service. He was citing figures from a recent submission from the umbrella organisation Maritime UK to the UK's Transport Select Committee, warning that the 2015 ECA regulations could cost £3.6 billion ($5.6 billion) a year to shipping within 200 miles of the UK.
"Costs could be dramatic" for ships sailing to ports in the Baltic, North Sea and the English Channel ports, Balston said, adding a number of studies have been carried out with extra cost estimates ranging from €1 to €4 billion ($1.4 to $5.5 million) a year in total. Balston predicted that cargo could be rerouted to ports outside the regulated zones.
Other observers have also predicted that ports just outside ECAs with land transport links to markets currently served by ports inside ECAs might become more attractive. The Maritime UK submission said there could be an average activity shift of 50% in cargo transported from sea to land in ECAs, increasing congestion and road pollution, raising fuel prices and undermining current efforts to reduce road freight by promoting short sea shipping.
"Even relatively small traffic losses - for example, 10% to 20% less cargo - on existing short sea services can trigger a vicious cycle of capacity reduction, combined with shifts between shortsea routes," Theo Notteboom of the Institute of Transport and Maritime Management in Antwerp was quoted saying.
The European Commission has on several occasions signalled that it is planning measures to ease the transition to the 0.10% sulphur limit and minimise compliance costs for the shipping industry.
Oceanox has seen no evidence of a willingness on the part of legislators to delay implementation. This being the case, willingness to invest in one of the technical solutions available to them is something that operators in the ECA must consider. When set against the cost of compliance by the use of marine gasoil (MGO) the capital investment required to install exhaust scrubbing equipment is paid back in a timescale measured in months rather than years. This can then create a significant cost advantage over un-scrubbed competitors and indeed those competitors choosing to re-route via sub-optimal logistics routes from non-ECA ports.
There are a number of credible sources for scrubbing equipment from household names to start ups and systems are operational at sea. Suppliers stand ready to form one solution in a suit of options for ship operators.
Bunkerworld.
Ports in ECAs 'vulnerable' to loss of business By Unni Einemo October 13, 2011
The UK port of Felixstowe is inside an ECA. A huge increase in shipping costs when the sulphur limit in Emission Control Areas (ECAs) drops to 0.10% in 2015 could cause loss of business for ports inside the regulated zone, according to a UK Chamber of Shipping official.
Ports in the Baltic and the UK will be "especially vulnerable" as bunker fuel prices could rise by 87%, David Balston of the UK Chamber of Shipping told the Port Strategy news service. He was citing figures from a recent submission from the umbrella organisation Maritime UK to the UK's Transport Select Committee, warning that the 2015 ECA regulations could cost £3.6 billion ($5.6 billion) a year to shipping within 200 miles of the UK.
"Costs could be dramatic" for ships sailing to ports in the Baltic, North Sea and the English Channel ports, Balston said, adding a number of studies have been carried out with extra cost estimates ranging from €1 to €4 billion ($1.4 to $5.5 million) a year in total. Balston predicted that cargo could be rerouted to ports outside the regulated zones.
Other observers have also predicted that ports just outside ECAs with land transport links to markets currently served by ports inside ECAs might become more attractive. The Maritime UK submission said there could be an average activity shift of 50% in cargo transported from sea to land in ECAs, increasing congestion and road pollution, raising fuel prices and undermining current efforts to reduce road freight by promoting short sea shipping.
"Even relatively small traffic losses - for example, 10% to 20% less cargo - on existing short sea services can trigger a vicious cycle of capacity reduction, combined with shifts between shortsea routes," Theo Notteboom of the Institute of Transport and Maritime Management in Antwerp was quoted saying.
The European Commission has on several occasions signalled that it is planning measures to ease the transition to the 0.10% sulphur limit and minimise compliance costs for the shipping industry.