Korea unveils roadmap for net zero in shipping by 2050

  • Market: E-fuels, Emissions, Hydrogen, Oil products
  • 22/02/23

South Korea's maritime ministry (Mof) has announced its strategy to decarbonise the shipping sector by 2050, with a focus on hastening the transition to what it terms as "eco-friendly" vessels.

The roadmap is a pre-emptive response to stricter decarbonisation regulations by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the international community, including Europe, Mof said on 14 February.

Mof expects the IMO in July to raise its international maritime carbon emission reduction target from 50pc to 100pc by 2050, in addition to more economic regulatory measures such as a carbon levy system. The 80th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee will be held over 3-7 July, and is expected to adopt the revised IMO Strategy for Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships, according to the IMO.

Mof sees "significant ripple effects" stemming from the tighter regulations on the shipping industry, since charging a certain amount for each tonne of carbon emitted will directly raise transportation costs for shipping firms. This will consequently make it "inevitable" for firms to switch to carbon-neutral fuels in order to stay competitive.

The Mof has consequently laid out its four-point strategy to achieve carbon neutrality in the shipping sector by 2050, in what it describes as a first in Asia.

Going green with support

The country will first convert ships owned by national shipping companies into ships that use eco-friendly fuels.

The roadmap has earmarked 867 outward-bound domestic vessels weighing 5,000 gross tonnes or more, which are subject to international regulations such as those set by the IMO, for conversion to eco-friendly ships. South Korea also aims to convert 118 eco-friendly ships by 2030, including the preferential conversion of 60pc of its liner service in Europe and the Americas, in response to the EU's regional regulations and introduction of its own carbon levy system.

South Korea aims to eventually replace all outward-bound domestic vessels with 100pc eco-friendly ships by 2050.

When building new ships, South Korea is planning to have dual-fuel engines that can utilise eco-friendly fuels such as e-methanol and LNG by 2030, and also aims to promote ammonia and hydrogen vessels.

These goals are in line with the previous "2030 Green Ship-K Promotion Strategy" that South Korea outlined in December 2020. The 2030 plan aimed to convert 15pc of South Korean-flagged ships, or 528 vessels out of 3,542, into greener ones. The government and public corporations are also required to build green vessels when replacing their old vessels.

Upon the successful implementation of the 2030 strategy, Mof forecasts that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2050 will be at 5.93mn t or half of the 11.81mn t in 2017. In the nearer term, Mof sees its strategy reducing particulate matter by 3,314t and GHG emissions by 4mn t by around 2030.

Secondly, the government will also provide support to encourage timely investment in the transition to eco-friendly fleets. The cost increase for domestic shipping lines is estimated at about 1.8 trillion South Korean won ($1.38bn) by 2030, as construction expenses rise because of the installation of expensive engines and fuel tanks for conversion to eco-friendly fuel ships. This is up by about 31pc compared to the cost of constructing conventional ships. Support from the government, public institutions, and the financial sector will be expanded so shipping firms "do not hesitate" to invest in building or converting eco-friendly ships, Mof said.

Public funds worth up to W4.5 trillion will be raised to provide loans through the financial sector, in addition to interest rate cuts for loans when building and operating eco-friendly ships. Measures to stimulate private ship investment will be prepared by the end of this year, such as issuing green bonds to support financing for shipbuilding.

A new fund worth up to W1 trillion will also be established to support eco-friendly vessel conversion in small- and medium-sized shipping companies.

Making way for future fuels

The third area of focus under the roadmap is for South Korea to develop eco-friendly technology and expand infrastructure for future fuels.

South Korea's trade and industry ministry (Motie) and Mof will jointly promote the development of technologies for eco-friendly vessels in a project over 2022-31, with an investment of W254bn. The two ministries will also study integrated biofuel technology over 2023-24 to secure future fuel production technologies for ships, and will also consider the expansion of floating carbon-free fuel infrastructure.

The country will also expand port facilities to prepare for fuels such as e-methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen. Legislation through the entire supply chain from production to storage to the sale and supply of bunker fuel will also be reviewed and improved.

Lastly, South Korea will establish carbon-free shipping routes and foster international co-operation. The country and the US launched a feasibility study in January to build a green shipping corridor between South Korea's Busan and the US, according to Mof. Domestic shipowner Hyundai Merchant Marine recently ordered nine methanol-fuelled vessels, with potential plans to use the aforementioned shipping corridor.

Public and private sector investment in eco-friendly shipbuilding is expected to hit W8 trillion by 2030 and W71 trillion by 2050, according to Mof.

South Korea expects this transition to be "a new national growth engine in the era of carbon neutrality", generating an economic value of W17 trillion by 2030, and W158 trillion by 2050.


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

Long-term contracts needed to stabilise gas prices: MET

Long-term contracts needed to stabilise gas prices: MET

London, 28 March (Argus) — Germany and Europe need more LNG and business-to-business long-term contracts to even out supply shocks and stabilise gas prices, even as demand is unlikely to reach historical heights again, chief executive of Swiss trading firm MET's German subsidiary Joerg Selbach-Roentgen told Argus . Long-term LNG contracts have a "stabilising effect" on prices when "all market participants know there is enough coming", Selbach-Roentgen said. He is not satisfied with the amount of long-term LNG supply contracted into Germany, arguing that stabilisation remains important even now that the market has "cooled down" after the price shocks of 2022. Long-term contracts are important for the standing of German industry, Selbach-Roentgen said — not to be reliant on spot cargoes is a matter of global competitiveness for the industrial gas market, he said. The chief executive called for more long-term contracts in other areas as well, such as for industrial offtakers, either fixed price or index-driven. Since long-term LNG contracts are concluded between wholesalers and producers, the latter need long-term planning security for their projects, which usually leads to terms of about 20 years. But long-term LNG contracts in general do not represent a major risk for MET nor for industrial offtakers in Europe, Selbach-Roentgen said. LNG is a more flexibly-structured "solution" to expected demand drops in regard to the energy transition as the tail end can be shipped to companies on other continents such as Asia if European demand wanes, he said. Gas demand is not likely to recover to "historical heights" again, mostly driven by industrials "jumping ship", Selbach-Roentgen said. When talking to large industrial companies, the discussion is often about the option that they might divert investments away from the German market as the price environment is "not attractive enough" for them any longer in terms of planning security, the chief executive said. This trend started out of necessity in reaction to the price spikes but may now be connected to longer-term "strategic" considerations, he said. In addition, industrial decarbonisation — as well as industrial offtakers' risk aversion because of the volatile gas market following Russian gas supply curtailments — leads companies to invest less into longer-term gas dependencies in Germany, Selbach-Roentgen said. In addition, MET advocates for a green gas blending obligation of 1-2pc green gas or hydrogen, in line with legislative drafts under discussion by the German government. This has already met with interest by offtakers, despite uncertainties around availability and prices, and would provide a regulatory framework that allows firms to prepare for the energy transition, Selbach-Roentgen said. By Till Stehr and Rhys Talbot Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Read more
News

Stalling climate finance an energy security risk : WRI


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

Stalling climate finance an energy security risk : WRI

London, 28 March (Argus) — The "best bet" to achieving global energy security is through mitigation funding and multilateral cooperation, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI). WRI highlighted that governments are funding more domestic renewable energy projects but have increased oil and gas production in the name of "energy security" at home in the years following the Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The recent rebrand of energy transition funding to energy security funding has allowed some developed nations to justify domestic oil and gas licences and drag their feet on multilateral financial commitments. This is causing "real worry" among climate-vulnerable developing nations, WRI chief executive Ani Dasgupta said. He said that although the initial "shock" to the world's energy markets after the invasion of Ukraine "quickly went away", it has triggered "real worry among poorer countries that when push comes to shove, it won't be an even game, or have a fair outcome." Developing countries have long complained about the lack of access to climate funding. Richer nations have only recently met the $100bn/yr target in climate finance to developing countries agreed in 2009, while discussions on setting a new climate finance goal for 2025 at Cop 29 in Baku in November could prove difficult. President of the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) Denis Sassou-Nguesso said last year that the $100bn/yr in climate financing to developing countries promised by rich countries "never reached us", adding that the annual UN Cop climate conferences have become little more than a talking shop. "Just after the invasion of Ukraine, every country started to think about energy security," Dasgupta said. "In theory, good things could have happened, countries could have concluded that their best bet to getting energy security is by going renewable". But it was not the case in key consumer countries or regions, Dasgupta pointed out. China bought the majority of Russian gas following the EU's withdrawal, he said, and has since upped production at coal-fired power stations despite an "extraordinary" acceleration towards renewables set for 2023-28, according to Paris-based energy watchdog IEA . In Europe, the UK and Norway continue to award new oil and gas licences . "In the US, the fossil fuel lobby argues that the best route to energy security is to invest more in fossil fuels". But the best route is to invest in more renewables, he said. "Even if the US produces a large amount of oil and gas, it is still a traded commodity, and so you have to pay a price for it that is set globally." The US special presidential co-ordinator for energy security Amos Hochstein has also suggested in September that a widening climate finance gap could ultimately threaten global security. "We have seen the percentage of dollars spent on the energy transition outside the OECD, in developing and middle income countries actually go down instead of up…" By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

ACT to partner with LR, Wartsila, and UECC on CNSL


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

ACT to partner with LR, Wartsila, and UECC on CNSL

London, 28 March (Argus) — Dutch supplier ACT Group is collaborating with classification society Lloyd's Register, Finnish engine manufacturer Wartsila, and Norwegian shipping firm United European Car Carriers (UECC) on the development and evaluation of cashew nut shell liquid (CNSL) as a biofuel in marine biodiesel blends. ACT confirmed the launch of a CNSL-based biofuel called "FSI.100", which has gone through extensive engine testing with various blend combinations. The CNSL-based biofuel has now received approval from engine manufactures to be blended as a 30pc component with marine gasoil (MGO) to form a marine biodiesel blend for the purpose of further sea trials. ACT confirmed that the FSI.100 product will benefit from lower acidity, and there is potential for the product to be compatible for blending with fuel oil. CNSL is an advanced biodiesel feedstock, making it a more appealing and price competitive option to buyers compared with other biodiesel feedstocks. The development follows a report by Lloyd's Register fuel oil bunkering analysis and advisory service (FOBAS) that pointed to a correlation between engine fuel pump and injector-related damage in vessels and the presence of "unestablished" CNSL in the utilised marine fuels. By Hussein Al-Khalisy Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Australia to delay mandatory climate reporting to 2025


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

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.

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.

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