1 / 18

German Shipowners‘ and Ports Associations Scandlines/TT-Line/Team Lines

THE MARPOL EFFECT German study Stockholm 24032011 Dr. Gernot Tesch MD Scandlines Deutschland GmbH Rostock/Germany. German Shipowners‘ and Ports Associations Scandlines/TT-Line/Team Lines . MARPOL Annex VI – regulation of sulphur content in ship fuels. Global and local sulphur regulations:

alyn
Télécharger la présentation

German Shipowners‘ and Ports Associations Scandlines/TT-Line/Team Lines

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. THE MARPOL EFFECT German study Stockholm 24032011Dr. Gernot TeschMD Scandlines Deutschland GmbHRostock/Germany German Shipowners‘ and Ports Associations Scandlines/TT-Line/Team Lines

  2. MARPOL Annex VI – regulation of sulphur content in ship fuels Global and local sulphur regulations: High burdens for SECA especially problematic for feeder and ferry operators as direct competition to road

  3. Background • Structured dialogue with German Government since 2008 • GER with support for MARPOL VI regulation • GER also acknowledged the need to prevent modal shift • In December 2008 agreement for a joint impact assessment • German focus in addition to other studies

  4. Background • Study by wellknown and reputated Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL) Bremen • Analyse cost effects on Short Sea Shipping and relevant markets • Analyse the effects on competition of transport modes • Estimate the volume of modal shift • Estimate effects on German ports • Recommendation

  5. Assumptions Relevant Market • Analysed corridors with impact on Germany • West SWE/N • South SWE • Balticum states • Russia • Finland - Belgium - SWE

  6. Assumptions Relevant Market – corridors & route alternatives ISL 2010

  7. Assumptions • Reference scenario • Ship costs • cost components for truck transport ISL 2010

  8. Results • Total cost increase in RoRo-sector for sea transport ISL 2010

  9. Some Results • Total cost increase in feeder sector ISL 2010

  10. Results • Risk of modal shift in RoRo sector ISL 2010

  11. Results • Risk of modal shift in container shipping ISL 2010

  12. RoRo: 604.000 trailer à 100 km 60 mill extra truck km Container: 820.000 TEU 113 mill extra truck km Feeder: 315.000 TEU (2 TEU / à 360 km) 14 mill extra truck km Short Sea: 95.000 TEU à (2 TEU / à 150 km) 187 mill extra kmon German roads Impact on the German road transport infrastructure 2015

  13. Recommendations and solutions • Discussion of all measures to prevent modal shift with German Government as regards SECA sulphur limit • Exhaust gas treatment technology • Alternative fuels (LNG) • Adjustment of sulphur caps • Postponing • Discussion/alignment of position with other countries

  14. Exhaust Gas Treatment Technology • Technology not sufficiently mature: Ongoing prototype testing by producers, but NO single sale at the market reported (test installations only and only on 1-engine-type vessels; we are running with 4 engines on main routes) • Found not sufficiently reliable at this stage (DFDS as test operator decided not to put scrubbers onto additional vessels until reliability has improved) • Low penetration in the market – no experiences about longer term reliability/effectiveness • National and international regulation – which systems are allowed in the Baltic? “Wet” method -> discharge at sea not recommendable in the Baltic, “dry” method –> requires setting up a disposal system) (again: different systems in the different SECA areas) • Availability of HFO in the Baltic area as precondition for scrubbers still unclear • Additional operational costs (higher fuel consumption, additional consumables, maintenance costs), hence higher CO2 emissions • Most suitable for new buildings, retrofitting of existing to be found unrealistic: • Dry docking, additional electrical power, space for scrubbers not available, impact on ship stability, loss of cargo capacity and deadweight, ice class issues (increased draft), stability and noise problems • On RoRo and RoPax scrubber installations will be most challenging due to weight, design, capacity issues and decreased deadweight: Exhaust Gas Cleaning System Association: “not suitable for all vessels” (volume vessels like ferries) • capacities not available for retrofitting 600 inner-SECA vessels until 2015 • Upper limit regarding engine power, unless running multiple scrubbers in parallel (given that space is available) • We are using 0,1 % since years voluntarily on HH, haven`t identified scrubber as alternative yet • MAIN PROBLEM: NOT CONTRIBUTING TO CO2 – REDUCTION

  15. LNG • More seen as a long term option for new buildings only • Currently valid for new buildings on pre-defined routes (no change of fleet for at least 20 years expected) and with the support of considerable subsidies (single vessel VIKING Line 27 M€) • space, technical and costs constraints for retrofitting • more space is required to accommodate the LNG tanks (up to a factor of 4) • worsens the ratio of investment costs to income from cargo transport, difference between the price of LNG and MGO sufficiently high • Much needs to be done in terms of infrastructure and bunkering support • Bunker infrastructure not existent and not to be created overnight, will not be available 2015 for sure • Lack of harmonized rules and procedures • CAN CONTRIBUTE TO SHIPS CO2 EMISSION REDUCTION

  16. Fuel with 0,5 % sulphur content

  17. Conclusion • Investments requires certainty about technology, fuel availability and legislation (wet or dry) • Additional regulation expected (CO2) • Investment in scrubbers for a few years only and a later switch to LNG isn`t acceptable • Loss of investment when sale into different parts of the world • Loss of flexibility (no charter/sale possible any longer) • Difficult bank financing • Different measures for existing vs. new ships as retrofitting of the existing fleet economically not viable whereas for new buildings a technical solutions seems to be possible, considering the technical progress until 2015 and the preparation work, possible on new buildings but hardly on existent vessels • Interim solution for existing fleet urgently needed (0,5% vs. 0,1% ) or postponement (Swedish/Finnish initiative), in order to prevent the modal shift and to enable the operators to accumulate the necessary capital for a stepwise replacement of the existing fleet

  18. Thank you! Dr Gernot Tesch Scandlines Deutschland gernot.tesch@scandlines.com

More Related