Emissions
- Global SECAs - haven't we been here before ?
- John Liddy
Liddy Associates Ltd
GMT 22:30
22nd Nov 2006Proposals for a “Global SECA” appear to be attracting attention. However, little acknowledgement seems to be made of earlier debate at IMO (although the term “Global SECA” was not in use then) on the same subject.
Ideas for a programme to reduce air pollution from shipping were originally tabled at IMO in 1988, and an early proposal for reducing SOx emissions was that bunker fuel sulphur levels globally should be capped at 1.5%. During the subsequent debate at IMO, a number of studies were presented which argued as follows:
1. Much of the SOx emissions from deep-sea shipping operating far from land will be diluted and deposited in the sea over relatively short distances, where they will be neutralised and captured in the seawater. SOx emissions from shipping operating far from land will therefore not have significant adverse environmental impact.
2. Imposition of a cap at 1.5% sulphur on bunker fuel used on deep-sea passages would substantially increase costs to the shipping industry, and (assuming that 1.5% S fuel would have to be produced by desulfurisation processes) would increase overall energy consumption (and hence Carbon Dioxide emissions) because of the energy input required in the desulfurisation process.
3. Conversely, the studies presented to IMO showed that SOx emissions from shipping in coastal areas and in ports could have significant adverse environmental impact on land.
The argument that a global sulphur cap of 1.5% for deep-sea shipping would entail additional energy consumption and additional costs for the shipping industry, without yielding any significant environmental benefit, led IMO to adopt the alternative approach of designating SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAs), in place of a single tight global cap on bunker fuel sulphur. The implicit assumption was that SOx emissions needed be tightly controlled only where they had a detrimental environmental impact.
The above arguments, and in particular consideration of the energy penalty incurred in removing sulphur from bunker fuels, seem even more pertinent today as attention turns to limiting or reducing shipping’s contribution to global Carbon Dioxide emissions.
The above is not of course intended to argue that IMO’s existing SECA concept should not be subject to review. Indeed, there may well be strong environmental arguments for increasing the number and the extent of SECAs, and for lowering the maximum sulfur levels in fuel used in SECAs, within the current IMO framework, in order to protect vulnerable areas from SOx emissions from shipping in coastal waters and in ports. It needs to be recognised though that extension of tight sulphur limits to the fuel used by deep-sea shipping will not deliver the same environmental benefits.
John Liddy
Liddy Associates Ltd. - Unni Einemo
Petromedia Ltd (UK)
GMT 22:33
22nd Nov 2006Hi John,
Are there any studies to substantiate the claim that a 'global SECA' based on low sulphur fuels, either fuel oil or distillates, would increase global emission of CO2?
It seems a valid argument, but unlike other claims in this debate I've not seen any studies referred to - while there are plenty of studies on actual SOx emissions.
Unni - John Liddy
Liddy Associates Ltd
GMT 09:06
23rd Nov 2006The question of increased CO2 emissions arising from desulfurisation of residual bunker fuel oil has been addressed by the European Oil Industry's environmental organisation CONCAWE. They estimate (Report 2/06, CONCAWE, Brussels) that for the EU refining system, producing all residual marine fuel to 0.5% sulfur would increase refinery CO2 emissions by about 5%, and producing to 1.5% sulfur would increase them by 3.5%.
The suggestion that shipping uses only distillate fuel globally is so new that there have not been any thorough published studies of the environmental benefits and costs. Intuitively it seems clear that producing increased amounts of distillate to meet the new marine demand will require more energy for processing of additional crude/feedstock, compared with today’s situation where the residual components of bunker fuel are effectively a by-product of manufacturing distillate to meet existing (largely non-marine) demand. A more sophisticated analysis would need to make allowance for what happens (in terms of CO2 emissions) to the residual fuel displaced from the marine market, and a counter-allowance for the slightly lower CO2 emissions when burning distillate compared to residual fuel.
- Alisdair Pettigrew
Blue Communications Ltd
GMT 12:25
3rd Jan 2007An interesting aside to the concept of the global SECA is the development of new technologies that threaten to supercede any legislation. At the Bunkerworld Forum in NY in Nov., speakers from MAN B&W (new turbo engine), Biofreindly (additives), Kiteship (sails) and DK Group (air cavity system (ACS) including hull redesign -- see: www.dkgroup.eu) concluded confidently that their combined technology could reduce CO2 in ships by between 35% and 45%. By the same token, they would reduce consumption of heavy fuel oil by similar amounts. The founders of ACS claim their technology can also scrub. If you fit a scubber of some kind, the requirement for legislation on a global scale appears far less needy given the speed of new technologies being developed. - Dave Culp
KiteShip Corporation
GMT 18:51
31st Jan 2007
IP: x.x.198.80In response to Alisdair's comments; the shipping industry has long been retroactive, rather than proactive, in its actions towards pollution issues. Had the industry been actively experimenting with any of the amelioration techniques Alisdair delineates ten years, or even 5 years ago, who knows to where today's SECA legislation (amongst others) may have been negotiated? Instead, a lengthy head-in-sand historical attitude towards proactive solutions seems to have resulted in a hodge-podge of hurriedly enacted legislation with little regard to long-term consequences. I challenge the industry to embrace proactive solutions, in the hope that we can regain control of our destiny.
Dave Culp
KiteShip - Pascal Lecointre
Xbee
GMT 13:27
8th Feb 2007
IP: x.x.52.93I would like to confirm what Alisdair presented regarding the impact of Biofreindly additives. Xbee can be considered as such, the technology involved being the action of enzymes on hydrocarbon molecules.
We are currently conducting a large study of Xbee impact on HFO. The results of our researches clearly demonstrate that it is possible to reduce dramatically GHG emissions from ships but also sulphur and NOx, by using biofreindly fuel enhancer.
We would like to present our job to the members of your forum, should you have a suggestion, thank you in advance
Pascal Lecointre
www.xbee.com - Galen Hon
Port of Tacoma
GMT 20:51
27th Feb 2007
IP: x.x.189.146
Three additional points on Global SECA's that could use some expansion as the discussion continues:
1) I agree with Mr. Liddy's suggestion that we need a "more sophisticated analysis" to describe the effect of displacing residual fuel in the marine market. I would add that such an analysis should be expanded further to include the energy (and expense) needed to ensure supply of lower-sulfur fuels at bunkering locations around the world. As it is, the supply of lower-sulfur bunkers or distillates is limited around the world due to refining capacity and/or naturally low-sulfur crude. Logistics alone would imply a significant increase in tanker traffic to support the global demand. That traffic would require even greater energy consumption, generate more emissions, and even create a statistical increase in spill risk. I appreciated the lively discussion at the Clean Ships conference in San Diego that sparked from INTERTANKO's presentation on global SECA's, but in light of benefits that seem clearly weighted towards tanker operators I have difficulty understanding why their proposal has developed any traction.
2) My background as an engineer is primarily in regional air quality and tropospheric interactions so I have been trying to grasp why the maritime community has dedicated such energy to reducing sulfates. There is an obvious argument for curbing emissions from maritime traffic in populated areas that have unhelpful meteorology and an existing pollutant burden from other sources. Many coastal areas, though, have generally decent air quality or have other regional air issues that are largely unperturbed by the effects of sulfate emissions away from berth.
Maritime traffic may stand out as a significant sulfate source in the tally of total emissions in an area, but being responsible for a large fraction of an otherwise small problem shouldn't draw as much attention as it often seems to. Is this a knee-jerk reaction to try to implement controls while there is an opportunity? Are there significant health or environmental effects that I'm missing? Is this meant to be pre-emptive as we expect pollutant burdens to reach levels of significance in several decades?
3) At the risk of blasphemy, I would propose that the albedo effect of ship emissions on the atmosphere is an important consideration for policy discussions. We are quick to point out when a given policy may cause CO2 emissions to change by a few percent, but we also need to account for the fact that the mass of reflective aerosols generated during ship ocean transits have a significant cooling effect on the climate. This effect is well studied, scientifically accepted, and accounted for in global climate change models. It could well be that reducing sulfur emissions in areas that have no pronounced acidification or localized PM problems really creates a global detriment for the effect on the global climate equation.
I appreciate any feedback on my comments and questions. Note the preceding statements represent my personal opinions and are not necessarily those of any organisations I am associated with.
- Guy Wilson-Roberts
Petromedia Ltd (Canada)
GMT 16:10
12th Apr 2007
IP: x.x.88.148It would be interesting to hear Galen's (and other's comments) on the importance of dealing with ship emissions on a local basis, such as in ports, where the direct population health impacts are the greatest. A new report has just been released covering Tacoma and Seattle (http://www.sustainableshipping.com/news/2007/04/67489) which details the total annual volumes of ship emissions. The hotelling volumes are interesting and would seem to validate port authority efforts to push ships to use cleaner fuels (i.e. distillates) in ports, or plug into shore power. - Raina Clark
R.O. Clark Maritime Media Relations
GMT 17:51
22nd Apr 2007
IP: x.x.205.116Thank you for putting this forum together! I've been part of the maritime industries for several years and am also an environmentalist. I'm a big advocate of bringing the shipping industry toward environmental sustainability.
Guy Wilson-Roberts mentioned in the last post that he'd like to hear more about "dealing with ship emissions on a local basis, such as in ports, where the direct population health impacts are the greatest."
About a month ago I saw Geraldine Knatz, Executive Director of the port of LA, on the Jim Lehrer News Hour. She talked about how her port was addressing air pollution. LA port pollution has been cited as the cause of significantly higher rates of asthma in the neighboring Hispanic communities. Opponents to the port’s efforts were also interviewed and Knatz noted that her organization was definitely “sticking their necks out there,” to be part of the solution.
The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (designed by the ports of LA and Long Beach) can be found at http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment_air.htm. - Guy Wilson-Roberts
Petromedia Ltd (Canada)
GMT 20:12
22nd Jun 2007
IP: x.x.88.148"It needs to be recognised though that extension of tight sulphur limits to the fuel used by deep-sea shipping will not deliver the same environmental benefits."
California is pushing for ships to use ultra-low sulphur distillates, 0.1%, along the coast and ports are also supportive of such proposals because of the direct local impact.
How ship operators comply with such local regulations raises interesting questions. Fuel switching has already been used by some whilst others have expressed concern with the operational aspects.
Perhaps some will chose to use distillate fuel on a more regular basis anyway, including on the high seas, even in the absence of regulations to do so or diminished environmental benefits. - Jon Watson
Razaghi Meyer International
GMT 14:34
6th Jul 2007
IP: x.x.53.57Interesting article "Rude Awakening?" by Dr Rudy Kassinger (http://www.sustainableshipping.com/news/2007/6/68368) which appears to suggest that reducing SOX only in SECAs, is not good enough.
He claims that it is the only fuel that has deteriorated in quality since its introduction. On the other hand, Wanda Fabriek of FOBAS declares to the contrary that fuel oil quality is not getting worse; claims re-iterated at conferences from CIMAC's SSM in Hamburg to IBIAs Bunker Conference in Monte Carlo some years later. The big change to fuel oil quality was probably in the 1970's energy crisis when secondary refining saw HFO shift from straight run to predominantly blended fuels.
What does appear to be worsening (maybe) is the degree to which the actual quality of the fuel corresponds to the quality claimed for it.
I mention this simply because it represents the tone of the article.
He also says:
"However, he said while sulphur content dropped in the SECAs, it rose in other areas. "All that is happening is a redistribution of sulphur," Kassinger said."
Is this a surprise? An unintended consequence?
Surely this is exactly what is expected? This is the consequence of the approach by the IMO and was based around the understanding that SOX emissions on global areas are not harmful.
He then quotes the average fuel sulphur content as dropping from 2.68% to 2.61% and says that this points to a low SECA impact.
How does it?
The whole point about SECAs is that it encourages the better use of the existing fuel stocks - low sulphur fuels in SECAs and high sulphur fuels in Global sea areas. SECAs can be a complete success and we need see no change in the average fuel sulphur content.
That some reduction is evident is perhaps attributable to positive changes in refining. Changes that are progressing at a rate that will allow us to reduce the sulphur limits in SECAs progressively as more low sulphur HFO becomes available, which it will if the refiners can invest into a predictable secure future, i.e. where we can resolve the distillate only issue once and for all.
In fact, if the average fuel sulphur is 2.6% and a SECA is limited to 1.5% then pre-SECAs the sulphur content in a SECA would have been 2.6% and is now 1.5%.
That is a substantial (38%?) reduction (a reduction in the 3% contribution to atmospheric sulphur from anthropogenic sources, 30% from land based fossil fuel burning having already been addressed and 66% being natural; this brings us to consider the points made about just how significant fuel sulphur is in any event; how much of that 3% is released where it can damage vegetation or human health?).
In the subsequent discussion much is made of the types of crude that can be processed and the refinery processes that affect fuel sulphur content. All good valid observations perhaps, but the evidence of their importance to the situation is that despite these observations, on his own evidence, the average fuel sulphur content has reduced; i.e. not evidence that SECAs are not effective but evidence that despite these observations/cautions, we are actually seeing the problems of sweet crudes etc. being confounded, that as MARPOL takes effect, the fuel sulphur content is actually reducing which was perhaps, not something anticipated this early in the life of the treaty.
Of course, if we consider the one active SECA, the Baltic, and can accurately assess the total SOX emissions before and after the SECA became active, we may not see much such a change because prior to the Baltic being a SECA we had the Green Bunkering Initiative within the industry which saw most (not sure what proportion) fuels supplied within the Baltic as 0.5% sulphur. (Meaning that in other areas the fuel sulphur average would be higher).
In order that all the proposed SECAs get an equal opportunity out of the available low sulphur fuels means a suitable and achievable limit that doesn't demand too radical a change in refining since it couldn't guarantee to get it. Long term success depends on bringing the refiners along such that they do invest in RDS and even before the Baltic SECA this was beginning to happen, admittedly to the surprise of some.
OK, so what we have is a variety of commentators presenting a situation where we are lead to believe that a global limit is necessary and that the industry should switch to distillate fuels only.
Yet some of the claims are misleading or not well understood.
For example, one commentator suggested that by switching to distillate fuels we also save the energy (and associated CO2 and SOx) consumed heating HFO fuel for combustion. But surely, and correct me if I am wrong, that heat is surplus heat from the exhaust. It is produced and wasted anyway. In fact, isn't this what makes Diesel engines so much more efficient in land based power generation over simple propulsion? the fact that they provide CHP and utilise that waste heat? In other words, the lack of a need to heat the fuel is misleading as to the benefits as the heat will be produced anyway, won't it?
Perhaps, as Galen suggests, we should consider global warming as part of our argument.
SOX is a global chilling agent. We know that.
The Global Dimming effect that has recently gained credence, even among global warmers who declare that it has masked the full effects of global warming, is largely based on the impact of fossil fuel burning and the release of SOX and other particulates that, in this scenario, interact with cloud formations.
From this we might conclude that not only do we not want to reduce the fuel sulphur globally, we might even wish to enhance SOX emissions in a planned and managed manner where we gain the benefits of global dimming to counteract global warming but where we release it where it doesn't harm human health or affect vegetation. i.e. in global sea areas.
One scientist had suggested a program to shoot capsules into the atmosphere (by missile/artillery etc) where they would release sulphur!
The marine industry can do better than that!
Perhaps a subsidy for controlled use of sulphur rich fuels in selected global sea areas?
- An interesting question around SECAs is whether residual fuel with a sulphur content of less than 1-1.5% is actually available. As the pressure comes on to lower SECA limits further, might fuel switching to distillate fuel be the only way of complying?
