Parliament mulls IMO, maritime CO2, scrubbers

  • Market: Emissions, Oil products
  • 29/10/20

The European Parliament's environment committee has voted for a "phase-out" rather than simple ban of open-loop exhaust scrubbers in the maritime sector. The committee also criticised international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the sector, with members calling for the EU to proceed with its own efforts.

The environment committee voted to slightly amend its opinion on measures for cleaner maritime transport so as to now call on the European Commission to propose a "phase-out and ban on the use of open-loop scrubbers as soon as possible". The committee also expressed "concerns" at the use of LNG.

The opinion approved today will feed into a report by the transport committee that also proposes banning the use of high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) with exhaust cleaning systems. In the transport committee, Danish liberal Soren Gade spoke out against a simple ban on scrubbers without a proper impact assessment. "Shippers have invested millions in scrubbers to comply with environmental legislation," Gade told the transport committee.

IMO efforts insufficient

After voting on its opinion on cleaner maritime transport, the environment committee joined others in criticising recent proposals put forward by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to cut the sector's GHG. The draft proposals are to be considered by the IMO marine environment protection committee (MEPC) on 16-20 November.

EU transport commissioner Adina Valean told the environment committee that she was "pleased" with the outcome of IMO talks, notably on the energy efficiency ship index and the carbon intensity indicator. But Valean will not rest until the IMO approves "concrete technical and operational measures" to deliver on the IMO's GHG reduction strategy, she said.

Rejecting the IMO proposals would have been a mistake, she said.

"We decided not to push for negotiations [at the IMO] to be postponed to an uncertain future date. And it is naive to hope that key players in the IMO will change their minds in six or 12 months. There is no time to wait," Valean said.

"I really ask you [the commission] to put more pressure on the IMO. Times have changed. Why should the shipping sector not be climate neutral in 2050?" Peter Liese, speaking for parliament's largest centre-right EPP group, said.

And Swedish socialist Jytta Guteland said it is "rather embarrassing" that the maritime sector has not contributed more to GHG cuts. She called for slow streaming, wind propulsion and logistics optimisation.

"Every year at the IMO, it is like we wi'll do it next year. It is not good enough," Guteland said.

German Green Jutta Paulus also criticised the IMO.

"We have no binding measures [at the IMO's MEPC]. Nothing that forces ships or companies to adhere to the measures to be taken," Paulus said.

"It is all the more important that the EU pushes ahead with its own measures. We have to move faster than the IMO," Paulus said.

Paulus is behind parliament's report adopted in September calling for the inclusion of maritime GHG emissions in the EU's emissions trading system by 1 January 2022, as well as cutting ships' annual average CO2 emissions by more than 40pc by 2030.


Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
28/03/24

Australia to delay mandatory climate reporting to 2025

Australia to delay mandatory climate reporting to 2025

Sydney, 28 March (Argus) — Australia's biggest companies will likely face mandatory climate reporting from 1 January 2025, six months later than originally planned, according to a bill the Australian federal government introduced in parliament. Under the revised proposal, the country's largest companies and financial institutions will need to start disclosing their climate-related risks and opportunities, including scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, within their annual sustainability reports from 1 January 2025 instead of 1 July as previously intended . Scope 3 emissions disclosure will continue to be required from the second year of reporting. Companies will be arranged in three groups, with group 1 entities including companies meeting at least two of three criteria: more than A$500mn ($324mn) of annual revenues, over A$1bn of gross assets, 500 or more employees. Group 2 companies will have lower thresholds — above A$200mn of revenues, $500mn of assets and 250 employees — and will start reporting from the financial year starting on 1 July 2026. Reporting for group 3 entities — those with more than A$50mn of revenues, $25mn of assets and 100 employees — will begin from 1 July 2027. The 1 January 2025 start date might be pushed further to 1 July 2025, if the bill does not become law before 2 December. It will now be debated in parliament and needs to pass both houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, before receiving royal assent. Its approval will support more investment in renewable energy as well as help companies and investors manage climate risks, the government said. Companies are currently not required to report their scope 3 emissions under Australia's National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, which is used to measure and report GHG emissions and energy production and consumption. Scope 3 can include emissions within supply chains that occur inside or outside Australia, such as emissions from the combustion of Australian coal or LNG exported to other countries. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Read more
News

Baltimore bridge collapse to raise retail fuel prices


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Baltimore bridge collapse to raise retail fuel prices

Houston, 27 March (Argus) — The collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, is more likely to increase regional gasoline prices than diesel due to additional freight costs and certain route restrictions. Suppliers in the region have so far signaled that the effect on broader markets will be minimal, but regional prices will likely rise, especially as peak summer demand season begins with Memorial Day weekend in late May. The bridge closure could pose more problems for gasoline supply than diesel, since gasoline cannot be transported through the Fort McHenry (I-95) and Baltimore Harbor (I-895) tunnels — the two other major roads that cross the Patapsco River at Baltimore — while there are no restrictions on diesel, according to the Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA). Fuel wholesaler Global Partners said yesterday that it would like to see hours of service waivers for trucking in the region to minimize fuel supply disruption to customers, but the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is yet to issue one. Elevated retail prices are likely to be limited to the immediate Baltimore area but could spill over into neighboring markets should trucking markets remain tight due to rerouting, market sources told Argus . Fuel markets in eastern Maryland can be supplied by PBF's 171,000 b/d Delaware City, Delaware, refinery and two further plants in Pennsylvania — Monroe Energy's 190,000 b/d Trainer refinery and PBF's 160,000 b/d Paulsboro refinery. To the north, United Refining runs a 65,000 b/d plant in Warren, Pennsylvania, and along the Atlantic coast Phillips 66 operates the 259,000 b/d Bayway refinery in Linden, New Jersey. PBF, Monroe and United did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether the bridge collapse is affecting refinery operations. Phillips 66 declined to comment on commercial activities. Still, the five nearby refineries — representing all the Atlantic coast's 850,000 b/d of crude processing capacity — are unlikely to see their operations curtailed by limits in shipping products to Maryland. With no refinery in the state of Maryland, most fuels are delivered to Baltimore by Gulf coast refiners on the Colonial Pipeline. Global Partners, which operates a terminal just west of the collapsed bridge, said yesterday it is primarily supplied by the pipeline and expects product flows to continue. Several terminals in the Baltimore Harbor and the nearby Port Salisbury can also receive small vessels and barges of road fuels from Delaware and Pennsylvania, according to the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA). The Port of Baltimore — which remains closed since the collapse — took delivery of 24,000 b/d of gasoline and under 2,000 b/d of distillates from barges and small vessels in 2019, about three percent of the Atlantic coast's refining capacity. "A closure of the Port of Baltimore while the Colonial Pipeline is open would not significantly disrupt fuel supply," the MEA wrote in a 2022 analysis of liquid fuels supply in the state. By Nathan Risser Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

European bio-bunker March prices firm on uncertainty


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

European bio-bunker March prices firm on uncertainty

London, 27 March (Argus) — Marine biodiesel prices firmed in the second half of March across Europe as higher levels in underlying markets combined with supply uncertainty to lend support to blend prices, despite limited demand. Very-low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) firmed by $16/t to $585.58/t on a dob Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) basis and $17.47/t to $628.17/t on a dob Gibraltar-Algeciras-Ceuta (GAC) basis during 14-26 March compared with the two weeks prior. Gains in the fossil market were mainly attributed to an increase in European refinery turnarounds as well as stronger crude values. The front-month Ice Brent crude futures 16:30 GMT marker averaged $86.07/bl on 14-16 March, an increase of $2.92/bl from 1-13 March. Rising fossil levels were accompanied by increases in the biodiesel spot barge market. Prices for advanced fatty acid methyl ester (Fame) 0°C cold-filter plugging point (CFPP) on a fob ARA barge basis averaged $1,407.15/t during the last two weeks of March, a $53.58/t rise from 1-13 March. Used cooking oil methyl ester (Ucome) barges firmed by $47.47/t to $1,316/t during the same timeframe. Biodiesel prices have firmed from long-term lows on the back of a reduction in European production and limited demand. Higher prices in underlying markets were accompanied by an emerging theme of biofuel supply uncertainty. Participants reported that European suppliers may look to steer away from Chinese-origin biodiesel as the EU's anti-dumping investigation continues, with a conclusion by early 2025 at the latest. This was compounded by chronic disruption in the Red Sea, historically the most utilised route on the east-west voyage, leading to traffic redirecting via the Cape of Good Hope and a subsequent increase in freight costs. The potential shift in supply routes can be supported by changes in product flows. Some 19,000t of Fame has been exported from China with a marked destination in Europe in March so far, an 80pc drop from February's 106,000t — according to Kpler data. This month's exports are just 10pc of the 184,000t exported from China to Europe in March last year, according to Kpler. Declining volumes from China were accompanied by an increase in Fame volumes exported from northwest Europe intra-continental to 409,000t in March from 364,000t a month prior. GTT data pointed to a 47pc decline in Chinese biodiesel exports in January-February, coinciding with an increase in Chinese exports of used cooking oil (UCO) with northwest Europe the main destination. Uncertainty in the supply import pool coincided with raised concerns around the presence of "unestablished" biodiesel feedstocks in bunker fuels. A report from Lloyd's Register fuel oil bunkering analysis and advisory service (FOBAS) highlighted a correlation between engine fuel pump and injector related damage in vessels and the presence of cashew nut shell liquid (CNSL) in marine fuels utilised by the vessels. CNSL is one of the cheaper advanced feedstocks and can be eligible for Dutch renewable tickets (HBE-G) — which can help make marine biodiesel blends more appealing and price competitive to buyers, as well as reduce production costs. But participants noted that during tests conducted by shipowners to assess the compatibility of CNSL with marine engines, technical and specification limitations emerged because of potentially high acidity and metal contents. This prompted shipowners and bunker suppliers to avoid fuels that contain CNSL, which may further constrict the pool of biodiesel supply that can be integrated into the maritime sector. Argus assessed the price of B30 Ucome dob ARA, a blend comprising 30pc Ucome and 70pc VLSFO, at $839.17/t during 14-26 March — an increase of just under $22/t from the 1-13 March average. B30 Advanced Fame 0°C CFPP dob ARA range averaged just over $785/t during 14-26 March, higher by $16.19/t from the two weeks prior. B100 Advanced Fame 0 levels rose by $16.62/t to $1,159.79/t in the second half of March. B24 dob Algeciras-Gibraltar firmed to $812.61/t in 14-26 March, an increase of $19.50/t from prices on 1-13 March. By Hussein Al-Khalisy Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Oil transition plans inadequate for investors: Report


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Oil transition plans inadequate for investors: Report

London, 27 March (Argus) — Oil and gas producers' energy transition plans are "insufficient for investors to accurately gauge transition risk", according to a report released today from investor initiative Climate Action 100+ and investor research group Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI). Several companies measured have net zero goals, but there is an "absence of disclosure on critical elements", which makes it difficult for investors to understand how companies will achieve net zero, as well as the transition risks posed. The lack of sufficient transition plans presents a "material financial risk", Climate Action 100+ said. The report assessed 10 publicly-listed oil and gas producers — European firms BP, Eni, Repsol, Shell and TotalEnergies, and North American companies Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Occidental and Suncor. The companies scored lowest against 'alignment' metrics, measuring if they are in line with the Paris climate agreement that seeks to limit global warming to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average. "More disclosure is required on the central aspects of transition planning, including measures to neutralise emissions, and production forecasts", TPI found. Companies assessed failed to score on 87pc of metrics related to quantifying emissions cuts, and on 89pc of metrics related to future oil and gas production. Most North American firms assessed have stated they plan to lift output, the report noted. But "without acknowledging the impact of the transition on the core business, companies risk deploying capital that… accentuates the risk of assets becoming stranded", it said. The report flagged a stark difference between the two regions. "European companies provide substantially better disclosure, set more aligned targets and are investing more in climate solutions", it said. North American firms are "not planning to meaningfully diversify into low carbon energy production", while European ones are exploring a range of lower-carbon options, including biofuels, hydrogen and renewable power. The companies assessed are also not reaching for "easy wins" on methane abatement, with just two having "convincing strategies" on this, the report found. Of the 10 companies, seven have joined reduction initiative the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, but "most companies have not set a methane emissions reduction target with a clear and specific base and target year." Investment is crucial for companies looking to decarbonise. A report this week from non-profit CDP and consulting firm Oliver Wyman found that more than half of corporations in high-emitting sectors said access to capital was "a key concern in decarbonisation efforts". Their report analysed data from 1,600 European companies, which reported via CDP's environmental disclosures programme. "This implementation gap between concrete business actions and stated climate goals persists despite most businesses reporting they have a transition plan and emissions reduction targets in place", CDP said. By Georgia Gratton Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Q&A: Singapore leads push for marine decarbonisation


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Q&A: Singapore leads push for marine decarbonisation

Singapore, 27 March (Argus) — Argus spoke to Ashish Anilan, assistant director at classification society Bureau Veritas Marine & Offshore, about the expected trends and the impact of EU-led emissions compliance regulations on the Asian maritime sector this year. How will Singapore impact the push for maritime decarbonisation in the coming few years? Though Singapore's position as the world's largest bunkering hub attracts decarbonisation initiatives, its true impact hinges on concrete actions. Initiatives like the Singapore Green Plan 2030 translate sustainability goals into action plans. Recent expressions of interest in electric harbour craft and bunkering for cleaner fuels like methanol and ammonia demonstrate Singapore's commitment to clean energy solutions and alternative fuel adoption. Additionally, digital and green corridor initiatives foster regional collaboration, supply chain resilience and operational efficiency, all crucial for achieving broader sustainability goals. By embracing concrete action, Singapore is showing the way as a true leader in maritime decarbonisation and this can inspire other ports and hubs across the world. What are your expectations for 2024? The maritime sector in 2024 still faces continued fuel price volatility, increased scrutiny on alternative fuels and a push for infrastructure development. Policy-wise, the implementation of EU regulations and potential expansion of regional or international carbon pricing mechanisms are anticipated. At IMO we will see the first year of CII [Carbon Intensity Indicator] verification and conversations on market-based measures. Shipping is a "hard-to-abate" sector and the inherent fragmentation makes decarbonisation a harder challenge. Do you think mandates will drive the change or market economics? Despite being a highly fragmented and a "hard-to-abate" sector, the shipping industry presents a unique opportunity for cost-effective emissions reduction schemes and efficiency improvement plans. It is crucial to recognise that international shipping primarily functions as a commodity mover, and its decarbonisation plays a key role in both supply chain resilience and the life-cycle emissions footprint of the cargo it carries. While regulations and mandates can offer valuable measurement tools, market forces often drive the primary change, facilitated by commitments from cargo owners and incentives provided by financial institutions. Will t he implementation of EU ETS, CII ratings and the upcoming EU FuelMaritime regulations be a deterrent or pave the way for fuel adoption by shipowners in Asia? While the upcoming EU regulations will initially increase compliance costs for Asian shipowners and their charterers engaging in European trade, they will also create multifaceted pathways towards cleaner fuel adoption. The premium for the cleaner fuels will be justified by the penalties imposed by market-based-measures. Alongside cost-effective efficiency measures, a long-term strategy incorporating supply chain collaboration and effective cost sharing mechanisms will be essential for these regulations to truly help incentivise the energy transition. Additionally, the broader Asian market may benefit from the potential harmonisation of environmental regulations spurred by the European framework. By Mahua Chakravarty Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more