Transcript Maersk Pilot Fuel Switch Initiative

In and out of the ECAs
compliance strategy of an international shipping line
jai
Regulatory Affairs
Maersk Maritime Technology
July 16, 2015
PAGE
2
Maersk ECA Compliance
Setting the scene
Principles of Conduct
Protecting the environment
We protect the environment by exercising constant care and optimizing our
operations, and endeavour to use natural resources responsibly and reduce
our environmental impact.
We are committed to countering climate change by striving to minimize
greenhouse gas emissions from our business activities.
Sustainability Report 2009
The A.P.Moller–Maersk Group
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
3
Maersk ECA Compliance
Setting the scene
Nomenclature:
MARPOL:
SECA:
SOx:
NOx:
PM:
HFO:
LSFO:
HSFO:
MDO:
MGO:
LNG:
IMO convention for prevention of pollution
Sulphur Emission Control Area
Sulphuric Oxides (SO, SO2, SO3, SO4)
Nitrogen Oxides (NO, NO2)
Particulate Matter
Heavy Fuel Oil
Low Sulphur (Heavy) Fuel Oil
High Sulphur (Heavy) Fuel Oil
Marine Diesel Oil
Marine Gas Oil
Liquefied Natural Gas
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
4
Maersk ECA Compliance
Setting the scene
Air emission regulations
adopted by IMO in 1997 as
a new Annex VI to
MARPOL.
The regulations entered
into force in May 2005.
1st SECA enforced in May
2006 – the Baltic Sea.
2nd SECA enforced in
August/ November 2007 –
the North Sea.
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
5
Maersk ECA Compliance
Setting the scene
3rd SECA will be the
North American ECA
Will enter into force
in August 2012
Will control both SOx
and NOx
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
6
Maersk ECA Compliance
Present regime:
Max sulphur content within SECA (IMO):
1.5%
1.0% from 1 July 2010
0.1% from 1 January 2015
California (CARB) rules (24 NM from shore):
1.5% MGO, or
0.5% MDO
After 2012: 0.1%
California at berth regulations on NOx and PM
Gradually increasing requirements
Maersk Line voluntarily followed the CARB rules from
2006 -> 2009.
Maersk Line used 0.2% MGO
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
7
Maersk ECA Compliance
Problem areas
Present ECA regime:
Change from HSFO to LSFO
After 2015:
Change from HSFO to MGO
Business as usual?
Rocket science?
Up till around 1980 all ships with large diesel engines changed from HFO to
distillate fuel upon entering port and back again after leaving port.
Newer engines re-circulate the HFO while in port and need not change to
distillate fuel.
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
8
Maersk ECA Compliance
Crew Training
Crew advised to follow change over procedure as
per engine manufacturer instructions
Change over considered ’Normal Engineering
Practice’
No special training provided
Maersk crews are trained to ISO 14001
Environmental Management Systems
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
9
Maersk ECA Compliance
Emissions Reductions Achieved in California
SOx
95 %
PM
86 %
NOx
12 %
SOx
NOx
Data based on Vessel Calls at Los Angeles and Oakland Ports switching from 3% S fuel to 0.2% S fuel
After 2015 the switch will be from 1.0% S fuel to 0.1% S fuel.
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PM
PAGE
10
Maersk ECA Compliance
Present compliance strategy in Europe
Use compliant fuel:
Three types of fuel must be
carried on board
After 2015:
Two types of fuel must be
carried on board
Alternative solution?
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
11
Maersk ECA Compliance
Alternative methods of compliance
Scrubber technology
LNG
Bio fuels
Cold ironing
New technologies?
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
12
Maersk ECA Compliance
Alternative methods of compliance
Scrubber technology
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
Alternative fuels
LNG as fuel
LNG tank
Maersk ECA Compliance
HFO tank (shown only for size comparison)
• Bunker infrastructure to be developed
• The LNG price is about 1.4 * HFO price (according to Wartsila January 2010)
• Required volume for fuel tanks about 3-4 times more compared to HFO tanks
• LNG takes up double the volume compared to HFO
• Storage in pressurised tanks results in “broken space”
• CO2 – about 23% reductions
• Assuming that no unburned methane escapes through the exhaust system (gas slip).
• The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane is 25 times higher than CO2.
• The gas slip percentage is under discussion, but not zero.
• SOx – 100% reduction
• NOx – 92% reduction
Maersk Maritime
Technology
Slide no. 13
Alternative fuels
Biodiesel
Maersk ECA Compliance
• Test effects of using biodiesel onboard a container vessel (Maersk Kalmar)
• Effects on air emissions (CO2, NOx, SO2)
• Long term storage effects (corrosion, water)
• Joint project between Maersk Line, Tankers, Drilling, Supply Service
• Testing will begin primo June 2010
• Vessel will be designed to be able to test other biofuels in the future
Maersk Maritime
Technology
Slide no. 14
PAGE
15
Maersk ECA Compliance
Cold ironing
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
16
Maersk ECA Compliance
Nuclear power?
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
17
Maersk ECA Compliance
Muscle power?
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015
PAGE
18
Maersk ECA Compliance
Contact Information
Niels Bjørn Mortensen
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Maersk Maritime Technology
A.P. Moller – Maersk
50 Esplanaden
DK 1098 Copenhagen
Denmark
[email protected]
+45 3363 4482
+45 4045 6850
Regulatory Affairs
July 16, 2015