Bunker platform ENGINE has compiled a report in partnership with Freight Investor Services in which prices are compared for conventional bunker fuels, LNG and biofuel blends, and then adjusted for calorific contents and potential European Union emission trading scheme (EU ETS) costs into next year.
The authors of the report claimed in a release that with their research they can now approximate true fuel choice costs “more on an apples-to-apples basis”.
The report suggests that Rotterdam looks like an attractive place to bunker LNG for dual-fuel ships that would otherwise have bunkered low-sulphur marine gasoil to consume in emission control areas (ECAs).
While in Singapore, LNG will compete more head-on with very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) to win over dual-fuel vessel customers, and LNG prices look uncompetitive.
Among lower-carbon fuels, B24-VLSFO, a biofuel blend, is attractively priced against LNG with government rebates in place in Rotterdam, but not in unsubsidised Singapore.
From January 1, shipping will be included in the EU ETS. As a result, vessels visiting EU ports will be required to offset their applicable CO2 voyage emissions through the purchase of an equivalent number of EU Allowances (EUAs).
The new regulations were branded as “bullshit” and “a complete waste of effort” by one of Greece’s largest shipowners, George Procopiou, while speaking at an event in Cyprus in October.
Tags: Bunkering, Engine, EU ETs, Freight Investor Services
Recent Posts
Chapman Freeborn OBC to reduce carbon emissions
OTG develops programme on ammonia fuel safety
Holland America’s cruise ship begins biofuel test
DNV releases April figures for Alternative Fuels Insight (AFI) platform
EPA approves 20% blend of renewable gasoline
India gets major push with first multi-purpose Green Hydrogen project
Carbon Clean starts CCS module construction
All American delivers hydrofoil-assisted tour vessel