1. INTERTANKO Asian Panel Tokyo 18 September 2007
AIR EMISSIONS
INTERTANKO Asian Panel
Tokyo
18 September 2007

2. KEY DATES 1997: MARPOL Annex VI adopted May 2005: Enters into force
July 2005: IMO/MEPC decides for revision
March 2006: MEPC delegates the revision to BLG
April 2006: BLG 10 establishes a W.G.
November 2006: W.G. intersessional meeting
April 2007: BLG 11 no agreements
MEPC 2007: IMO S.G. Group of Experts is established

3. OUTCOME FROM IMO/BLG 11 SOx & PM
A. Base Line - No change in SOx regulations
B. Global & Regional (SECA):
Global S cap & lower S cap in SECAs
USA – [0.1%] S cap up to [200] nm from shore
BIMCO proposal – 3% global S cap; 1% 0.5% MDO in SECAs or scrubbers
C. GLOBAL S CAP (no SECA) :
Mandate 1% 0.5% MDO for all ships
Global S cap or emissions limit but leave the industry to choose compliance method

4. OUTCOME FROM IMO/BLG 11 - NOx
Tier I – to apply to pre-2000 engines
Tier II - from 2011 a reduction by
12% - 20% for slow speed engines (n < 130 rpm)
20% to 35% for rapid engines (n > 2000 rpm)
Tier III as from 2015/2016 reductions
Option A - 80% for all engines when in all sea waters within 50 nautical miles from each coast line
Option B - 83% - 85% - for large engines only in NECAs
Option C - 30% - 50% with in engine modification and connected to the use of MDO only

5. The IMO Group of Experts
Evaluate the different fuel options’ effects on:
Reducing SOx & PM emissions and
The consequential impact fuel options could have on NOx emissions
Impact on the environment, on human health, on the shipping industry and the petroleum industries

6. The IMO Group of Experts
Data collection by mid September
Meetings – September, November & December
Final Report – December
Funding – IMO, Administrations & NGOs

7. The IMO Group of Experts ASSESSMENTS
The impact on SOx and PM emissions from ships and consequential impact on other emissions, such as nitrogen-oxides (NOx);
The waste associated with production and operation of abatement technologies;
The consequential impact on CO2 emissions from ships and refineries taking into account the availability of CO2 abatement technologies

8. The IMO Group of Experts WORK METHOD
4 sub-groups:
Shipping group
Fuel group
Environmental/health group
Software/methodology group
INTERTANKO – Assessment of:
Total # of ships (12 type categories)
Total fuel consumption (HFO + MDO)
Emissions: SOx, NOx, PMs & CO2
BIMCO – Suggested method for fuel consumption forecast until 2020

9. The IMO Group of Experts INTERTANKO FINDINGS
Ships 400 GT and above: 59,859
Fuel Consumption:
HFO consumption: 350 MT
MDO consumption: 60 MT
CO2 Emissions:
1,246 MT (if only HFO used)
1,214 MT (if only MDO used)
- 32 MT (if only MDO used)
SOx emissions: 20.1 MT
SOx savings from current SECAs: 2.5% reduction of the total

10. INTERTANKO ASSESSMENTS ON CO2
Use of MDO as fuel saves 32 MT of CO2
Low S content MDO means less ”buffering” and release of CO2 from the Oceans – potential saving of 27 MT of CO2
Further CO2 emissions reductions by use of MDO:
Less sludge to burn MT
Less heating & onboard treatment 2 MT
Project to recover CO2 by tankers with zero “footprint” – potential saving 1.5 MT
TOTAL CO2 reduciton > 65 MT/year

11. CO2 FROM REFINERIES Total HFO for replacement to MDO: 250 MT
Refinery fuel used for crude oil processing – average 6 tonnes per 100 tonnes processed
Carbon to CO2 factor: 3.14
Thus:
250 MT * * = 47.1 MT CO2
Use of MDO only: expected CO2 reduction by some 20 MT

12. MDO AVAILABILITY - 63% - 65% - 61%
250 MT means a further reduction by 6.5%

13. MDO AVAILABILITY THE PROBLEM IS NOT SUPPLY OF MDO
”Marine Fuel Oils are the last major outlet for residual fuels although this may in time be affected by legislation to reduce the sulphur content in such fuels” (CONCAWE report 1/07)

14. HISTORICAL AND FORECAST PRODUCT DEMAND (EU-25 + 2)

15. COSTS ESTIMATED ON A SCR*
Urea consumption ≈ 25 l / MWh
NOx reduction ≤2 g/kWh
Investment costs 40,000-60,000 USD / MW
Running costs (urea) ≈ 3.75 USD / MWh
Maintenance costs ≈ 0.9 USD / MWh
For a 7 MW onboard installed power, the costs will be
Investment 280, ,000 USD**
Running costs 630 USD/day
for 50 days/year 31,500 USD/year
Maintenance 151 USD/day 7,560 USD/year
TOTAL ,060 USD/year
* Data provided by WÄRTSILÄ for Sulzer 6RTA52U with SCR system
** 280,000 USD x 60,000 ships = 17 billion USD in capital cost
*** Some 2 billion USD running cost/year for the entire fleet

16. What’s next? IMO Study: July – December
Intersessional meeting Berlin: 29 October – 2 November 2007
BLG 12: January 2008
MEPC 57: March/April 2008
MEPC 58: October/November 2008

17. Questions?

18. INTERTANKO Asian Panel Tokyo 18 September 2007
KEY ITEMS FROM ISTEC
INTERTANKO Asian Panel
Tokyo
18 September 2007

19. ISTEC Agenda (selection)
ENVIRONMENT
Ship recycling – Ship Recycling Guidance
Port Reception Facilities
TANKER STRUCTURES
IACS CSR - Proposed Rule Changes
Performance Standards for Seawater Ballast Tanks Coatings - Industry Best Practice Guide
Performance Standards for Cargo Tank Coating
Coating Maintenance and Repair
Goal Based Standards
Maintenance standard – Owner’s manual

20. ISTEC Agenda (selection)
MARINE, SAFETY AND SECURITY
Maritime Security
Pilotage
Lifeboats
Marine Instruction/Operation Manuals
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
ENGINEERING AND RELATED MATTERS
Revision of MARPOL Annex VI
Reduction of GHG emissions from ships
Experience with trading in SECA
IMO Working Group on revision of design and standards of Shipboard Waste Management handling equipment
OTHER MATTERS
Results of INTERTANKO Human Element in Shipping Committee: Cadet Berth Survey 2007
Main Engine Bearing Condition Monitoring
Load Line Zones off South Africa

21. GHG Redcution Minimise the energy used by ships
Reduce the heat losses from all onboard installations
Minimise onboard operations that are not necessary like tank cleaning
Maximising the cargo onboard ships
Minimise onboard operations that could be more efficiently done at shore (the HFO treatment should be done before delivery to ships; instead of 50,000 ships treating the amount of residual fuel onboard, the treatment should be done onshore in larger installations with a smaller energy consumption; use of MDO: no need for onboard treatment and waste handling; no need for onboard incineration
Alternative fuels – (biodiesel, fuel cells, solar panels) - save/minimise energy from burning fuel oil
Carbon capture - methodology to capture CO2 from the exhaust gas form the ship's funnel and re-used it as methane in auxiliaries

22. GHG Redcution Maximise the fuel efficiency
Larger ships
More efficient engines
Smoother hull surfaces - (silica/nano-technology, air skirts; seachests shape; hull weld protrusions, other protrusions)
Reduced wave resistance
Reduced hull resistance (slime is bacterial fouling; non biocidal AF paints are proposed - they slime bad; the cost of slime in terms of drag is under researched: we do not have hard numbers; hard hull cleaning versus soft slime brushing ... benefits, cost and drawbacks .. )

23. GHG Redcution Maximise the fuel efficiency
Improved propulsive efficiency (propellers, smoothness, cleaning ... position ; rudders, shape ... position .... relation to position of propeller ..)
Composite materials
"Air friction" to reduce drag - WAIP (Wing Air Induction Pipe) technology (would the degree of drag reduction due to air bubbles be sufficient to overcome the increase of drag by injectors/protrusions of such a system?)

24. Questions?