Page 13: of Maritime Logistics Professional Magazine (Jan/Feb 2017)

12 14

INSIGHTS

The IMO’s 0.5% Global

Bunker Sulfur Cap

Breaking down the challenges of the 2020 sulfur cap can be confusing.

Matti Bargfried provides a primer.

By Matti Bargfried

What has happened so far? tight, IMO Member States might nevertheless conclude that it

The IMO this October voted in its 70th session of the Ma- is politically unacceptable to postpone implementation.” rine Environment Protection Committee to globally cap the This may have its roots in the fact that the European Union has maximum amount of sulfur allowed to 0.5%. HFO will be already agreed that the sulfur cap will be effective for all 200- further allowed (there is no mandate to disallow usage) pro- mile deep EU Member coastlines by 2020. The coastline reaches vided it meets the set standards. Alternative measurements partly into the Indian and Paci? c Ocean as some states have ter- like scrubbers are also accepted to reduce the ship emissions. ritories overseas. Setting the date to 2025 would make the North

This number had already been unanimously adopted in 2008 African Coast corridors where 3.5% sulfur is still allowed, too during a meeting of the MARPOL Annex VI review group, close to many European States for the liking of the EU regulators.

and was rati? ed by 53 countries (81.88% of tonnage). The date of implementation depended on the outcome of a study Does the Sulfur Cap Make Sense?

which the IMO conducted and presented this August. It might in fact be a case of too little; too late. Not only does

The study aimed to determine if suf? cient production and the EU take over action regarding environmental regulations, therefore availability of low sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) would be leaving IMO behind in the political ? eld, the IMO regulations likely. A positive outcome would set the date at 2020, whereas are too weak and the cap agreed on is too forgiving, from an a negative prospect would allow another ? ve years before the environmental point of view.

new regulation became effective. Bloomberg estimated that According to Bill Hemmings, Director of Aviation and Ship- the global cap would add 250 million metric tons of LSFO to ping of the NGO European Federation for Transport and En- global demand. vironment, the IMO wasted 10 years following Kyoto which

The IMO study concluded that there are no bottlenecks of tasked the organization with regulating greenhouse gas emis- low sulfur fuel to expect, whereas another published study sions. Shipping companies and ship managers may cringe by EnSys claimed the opposite. It is worth noting that EnSys because of the ever-rising costs of remaining compliant by made an unsuccessful bid to carry out the of? cial IMO study. using better fuels like marine diesel or expensive scrubbers.

The EnSys study was supported by BIMCO and IPIESA, an Conversely, NGOs and scientists cringe because even 0.5% oil and gas industry association. of sulfur is still ? ve hundred times higher than sulfur limits in

However, the International Chamber of Shipping pointed diesel for cars, where its capped at 0.001%. out in its Annual Review 2016 out that the IMO might place It has long been known that vessels pollute the environment itself under political pressure if it set the date at 2025: “In much more than all cars combined. So, does it makes sense to fur- reality the decision taken by the IMO is likely to be a political ther reduce sulfur? Yes it does, but many companies will be affect- one. […] Even if the supply of compliant fuel is projected to be ed negatively. However, there are other points to consider when

Sulfur Limit in %

Date

GlobalSOx ECA 2000 1.5% 4.5% 2010 1% 2012 3.5%

Photo credit: gcammarata 2015 0.1% 2020 0.5% www.maritimelogisticsprofessional.com 13

I