Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
AIR EMISSIONS FROM SHIPPING Revision of MARPOL Annex VI: The Distillate Option Paris 24 May 2007. Peter M. Swift. Air Emissions from Ships Governing Regulations. MARPOL Annex VI entered into effect in 2005 (Global Sulphur 4.5%, 1.5% in SECAs) Baltic Sea - SECA from May 2006
Peter M. Swift
(Global Sulphur 4.5%, 1.5% in SECAs)
- local regulations on Ship Emissions, which are inhibiting future expansion/development
- introducing differentiated port fees
Of particular concern to tramp sectors, trading internationally, lifting bunkers in ports worldwide
tighter international standards for NOx emissions
- designate Atlantic coast and Mediterranean as SECAs
reduce sulphur level in SECAs to 0.5%
introduce financial incentives for low emission operations
encourage use of shore-side electricity for ships in port
develop marine fuel quality standard(s)
Commission to encourage level playing field and action at IMO
European Council adopted similar positionProblem of air pollution from ships - Well Recognised in Europe
EU Thematic Strategy on Air PollutionCOM(2005) 446 & SEC(2005) 1132 and 1133
(Adopted Sept. 2005)
Role of Maritime Emissions
DG Environment, European Commission
Fine particles PM2.5Life expectancy:8.1 months in 2000, 5.5 months in 2020Life years lost:3.6M in 20002.5M in 2020Premature deaths350,000 in 2000 272,000 in 20201997 Met. year
Percentage of ecosystem area in each model grid cell with nitrogen deposition above “safe level”
Total Ecosystem area exceeded from eutrophication 590 000 km2
1997 met. year
Ships will represent 125% and 101% of land based SO2 and NOx emissions in 2020.
“..in last 15 years..little, if any, reduction in sulphur emissions”
“..this fuel sulphur cap is set at a level 3,000 times higher than is commonly used now inland transportation”
“..Ocean Going Vehicles (OGVs) are now one of the largest anthropogenic sources of air pollution… Recent estimates in the scientific community indicate OGVs represent approx.18-30% of the world’s NOx pollution & 9% of global SOx emissions.”
“IMO Member States now hold a unique opportunity to revise the MARPOL Annex VI engine and fuel standards in a manner that will provide a long-term solution to the significant air emissions generated by ships.”Global Concerns Widely Expressed (1)
declared intention to propose stricter sulphur regulations and that “NOx emissions from ships should be reduced as much as possible”
State of California – setting the pace, by:
mandating the use of distillates in auxiliary engines from 2007 and targeting emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulphur oxides from ship main engines by 2010Global Concerns Widely Expressed (2)
Engine exhaust gases are dependent upon engine type, engine settings and fuel type
INTERTANKO members are committed to continuous improvement in environmental performance.
Pollution of oceans – three straight years of record low quantity of oil spilled, and “striving for zero”
Pollution of atmosphere:
Similarly committed to achieving a dramatic reduction in harmful air emissionsTanker Owners Committed to ReducePollution (of Oceans and Atmosphere)
Principles behind the INTERTANKO position:
Use of distillate fuel (i.e. MDO), with:
sulphur content of 1.0% from 
sulphur content of 0.5% from  for newer engines
Worldwide application, thus effectively a global SECA
Establishment of an international specification standard for distillate fuelThe Distillate Option
1. Reductions of:
SOx by up to 80%,
Particulate Matter by 80-90%,
NOx by approx. 15% (initially)
2. Reduction in fuel consumption on ships and thus reduction in CO2
3. Facilitates further reductions in NOx
Applicable to virtually ALL existing ships and engines, with only minor modifications and costsThe Rationale for Distillate Option
Cleaner fuels, such as distillates or lower sulphur residual, will be more expensive than high sulphur residuals – costs will be passed through to the shipowner
The costs of manufacturing, fitting and running of abatement systems will similarly be borne by the shipowner
In the case of the former the responsibility for the supply of the clean fuel lies with the refiner,
in the latter case the responsibility for clean exhaust gas AND the disposal of the scrubbed waste products lies with the shipowner.Implications & Implementation
Scrubbers place the burden of handling and disposal of the waste by-products (solid and liquid) on the shipowner !
What we must avoid is another “oily water separator” issue, where the shipowner has to process the “waste”, and where the equipment is often unreliable, suitable reception facilities are not available, and the on-board processing is very burdensome.
*Photo courtesy of Krystallon website
Additional SECAs requiring large quantities of LSFO (low sulphur residual fuel)
According to CONCAWE study LSFO will be more expensive than adopting distillate
Global distillate option
According to Europia 200 mtpa of distillate required instead of residual fuel oil, refinery investment :
USD 38 bn → USD 50 bn → USD 100 bn (varies at presentation)
SAY USD 100 bn for 200 mtpa capacity spread over say 10 years:
Additional cost USD 50 / tonne
Unit cost ca. USD 1 million + docking, fitting, etc.
Up to 5 required per ship, but SAY total cost ca. USD 4 million per ship
Fitted to SAY 40,000 of world’s ocean going fleet
Total Cost ca USD 160 bnEstimating some of the costs
The desulphurisisation of residual fuel to produce low sulphur residual requires significant energy and thus creates additional CO2
The production of additional distillates will similarly increase refinery CO2 emissions
However the use of distillates reduces ship’s total fuel consumption, makes redundant onboard fuel pre-treatment systems and reduces to a minimum energy for onboard waste treatment, all leading to lower CO2 emissions. Further improvements in engine efficiency are also possible with distillates and thus additional reductions in CO2 production.
When considering the overall benefits from a Green House Gases standpoint (CO2 and NOx), the switch to Distillates is a very attractive option.
At worst, the switch to distillates appears to be “CO2 neutral”, while other options will produce additional CO2.Implications & Implementation
IF ONLY WE HAD A MAGIC BIN THAT WE COULD THROW STUFF IN AND MAKE IT DISAPPEAR FOREVER. WHAT WE CAN DO IS FIND CREATIVE WAYS TO RECYCLE. GREENHOUSES USE OUR WASTE CO2 TO GROW FLOWERS AND OUR WASTE SULPHUR TO MAKE SUPER STRONG CONCRETE.
REAL ENERGY SOLUTIONS FOR THE REAL WORLD
The Distillate Option is straightforward and simple to implement for virtually all existing ships and engines, with strong environmental benefits and effectively no other investment than a higher price for the bunker fuel.The Distillate Option
VOCs generated both during loading and on passage
For more information, please visit: