{"id":132540,"date":"2022-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-10-20T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nursingstudybay.com\/2022\/10\/20\/air-emissions-the-effects-on-the-shipping-industry-and-ports-implications-for-the-port-of-singapore\/"},"modified":"2022-10-20T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2022-10-20T00:00:00","slug":"air-emissions-the-effects-on-the-shipping-industry-and-ports-implications-for-the-port-of-singapore","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/air-emissions-the-effects-on-the-shipping-industry-and-ports-implications-for-the-port-of-singapore\/","title":{"rendered":"AIR EMISSIONS: THE EFFECTS ON THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY AND PORTS Implications for the Port of Singapore"},"content":{"rendered":"

AIR EMISSIONS:
\nTHE EFFECTS ON THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY AND
\nPORTS
\nImplications for the Port of Singapore<\/p>\n

ABSTRACTS
\nTitle of Dissertation: Air Emissions: The Effects on the Shipping Industry and
\nPorts \u2013 Implications for the Port of Singapore
\nDegree: MSc
\n\u2018Climate change\u2019 has been regarded as one of the major problems of the atmosphere. The
\ninternational shipping attributes to approximately 3 percent of the global emissions.
\nStudies had showed that the ship emissions have certain level of impact to the cause of
\nclimate change, and the air quality which directly or indirectly affects human health.
\nMARPOL Annex VI was the first effort made by the International Maritime
\nOrganization (IMO) to curb the emissions from ships. It places a global cap on sulphur
\ncontent of fuel oil and introduces technical code to marine engines in phases to reduce
\nthe emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx). IMO through the Marine and Environment
\nProtection Committee (MEPC) has also adopted a package of measures to mitigate and
\nreduce ship emissions through controlling the efficiency of ships\u2019 operation and ships
\ndesign, i.e. EEDI and SEEMP. The EEOI and Market-based Mechanisms (MBMs) are
\nalso on the study table of IMO. If the MBMs are introduce it will inevitably influence
\nthe business strategy and policies of the shipping companies, operators and other
\nrelated shipping industry.
\nDue to the establishment of the various emission control policies, abatement
\ntechnologies and alternative fuels have been explored at different industries and level
\nhoping to find the best technology or solution for the ships to comply with the
\nregulations.
\nAligned with the international ships emissions policies, Singapore has taken a 3-pronged
\napproach to cover its duty as a flag administration, a major port, and as a maritime hub
\n“#
\npromoter to encourage development of local innovation for new technology for reduction
\nof GHG emission.
\nThis dissertation will look at some of the strategies and policies adopted in major ports,
\nand the challenges faced by the shipping companies in meeting with the international,
\nregional and national ship emissions requirements. It will also examine the strategy and
\napproach by Port of Singapore and makes possible recommendations to improve the
\nemission reduction policy framework.
\nThe conclusion of this dissertation will discuss the impact of the air emission policies
\nhave on the maritime industry and examine the gaps in the current \u2018green\u2019 policies from
\nport of Singapore. A list of recommendations was proposed for the port of Singapore to
\nmend these gaps.
\n#
\nTable of Contents
\n!”#$%&%'()*”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””#
\n%#+*),$”!-“.”*’\/ “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””##
\n%0\/’&%#’\/ “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””###
\n$#%&!'(!)*+,-%””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””.##
\n$#%&!'(!\/#012-%””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””.###
\n$#%&!'(!3++2-.#*&#’4%”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””#5
\n6″! 78)9:;<=)7:8″”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””6
\n1.1 Background on the push for Air Emission Control in Maritime\/ Shipping Industry. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$%
\n!”#$%&”””()$*#(&$+,”–“).$\/)01’2#3 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 5
\n671’%’$(*$’18,$7″#$-(9912″()$*#(&$2,%$’,”–“).$”)01’2#3 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 :
\n1.2 Scope $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&
\n1.3 Methodology$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$’
\n>”! ?:$7)7=3$!$3@A9B!78!?:$7=@!C3D78E””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””6F
\n2.1 International Level$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%%
\n;4<4<$ \/)*91%)8%$(*$=3(2($-#”)8″-9%’$()$’,”–“). 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444<>
\n;4<4;$ ?(9%$7)0$-(9″8″%’$(*$\/)2%#)72″()79$@7#”2″&%$A#.7)”B72″()$C\/@AD4444444444444444444444444444444444444<>
\n2.2 Regional Level $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%(
\n;4;4< !)$”991’2#72″()$(*$E1#(-%7)$F)”()$CEFD$()$7″#$%&”””()’$&()”2(#”).444444444444444444444444444444F
\n3.1 Air Pollution generated by ships$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$))
\nJ4<4<$ H(9″8″%’$()$KAI$%&”””()’$8()2#(94444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444;J
\nJ4<4;$ +AI 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444;>
\nJ4<4J +E6!’$7)0$E6!’44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444;L
\n3.2 Bunker$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)&
\nJ4;4< M179″23N$H#(O9%&’$P”2,$Q(P$+19-,1#$R1%94444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444;S
\nJ4;4; +1–93444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444J<
\n3.3 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$**
\nJ4J4< \/@A$TUT$+210″%’444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444JJ
\nJ4J4;$ E)%#.3$E**”8″%)83$V%'”.)$\/)0%I$CEEV\/D$7)0$+,”-$E)%#.3$E**”8″%)83$@7)7.%&%)2$H97)$
\nC+EE@HD44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444JL
\nJ4J4J$ E)%#.3$E**”8″%)83$A-%#72″()79$\/)0″872(#$CEEA\/D44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>W
\n#”
\nJ4J4>$ @7#X%2YO7’%0$@%7’1#%’$C@Z@’D 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>W
\n3.4 Conclusion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+*
\nI” A\/\/:9)B!J!)A=K8:$:E@!\/:9!9A;<=)7:8!:\/!AC7BB7:8B!\/9:C!BK7?B “”””””””””””””II
\n4.1 Ship\u2019s Structural & Technologies$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$++
\n>4<4< EI,71’2$T7’$@7)7.%&%)244444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>5
\n>4<4;$ \/&-#([%&%)2$”)$E).”)%$H%#*(#&7)8%44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>L
\n>4<4J$ \/&-#([%&%)2$”)$+,”-‘$V%'”.)’444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>G
\n4.2 Fuel$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+,
\n>4;4<$ M179″234444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>:
\n4.3 Port $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-)
\n>4J4<$ 6(90$\/#()”).444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444445J
\n4.4 Conclusion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-+
\nL”! A=:8:C7=3$!78\/$!U AFFZ”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””PN
\n3SS-4T#5!G!U :.-2.#-X!'(!-5#%(!*4T!T-.-,’S#40!2-01,*&#’4%””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””PP
\n#””
\nList of Tables
\nTable 1 – Concentration of greenhouse gases from 0 to 2005. This graph shows the
\natmospheric concentration, where increased has been observed since 1750 when
\nindustrialization started to bloom. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)
\n.\/012!)!3 456789!5::2;!<=>!?8;!2@”AA”B:!AC\/:D\/EDA!FBE!:2G!AH”I!2:J”:2A$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$)+
\n.\/012!*!3 .”@21″:2!FBE!E2DKLC”B:!BF!M8;!”:!456789!5::2;!<=$!^_,%$;W;W$*1%9$
\n’27)07#0$”‘$’1O]%82$2($2,%$;W<:$*%7′”O”9″23$’2103$2($O%$8()0182%04$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)-
\n.\/012!+!3 N2#21BI@2:C!BF!0K:O2E!FK21!IE”L2A!FEB@!)PP(!CB!)P%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*%
\n.\/012!-!3 =AAK2A!E\/”A2D!G”CH!E2J\/EDA!CB!QQN=$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*,
\n.\/012!(!3 5D#\/:C\/J2A!\/:D!D”A\/D#\/:C\/J2A!BF!LKEE2:C1R!”D2:C”F”2D!\/1C2E:\/C”#2!FK21A$ $$$+&
\n.\/012!,!3 M”:J\/IBE2SA!@\/E”C”@2!SJE22:S!”:”C”\/C”#2A$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(*
\n.\/012!&!3 62IE2A2:C\/C”#2!H2\/1CH!2FF2LCA!BF!\/”E!IB11KC\/:CA$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,-
\n.\/012!’!3 62IE2A2:C\/C”#2!2:#”EB:@2:C\/1!2FF2LCA!BF!\/”E!IB11KC\/:CA$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,-
\n.\/012!%P!3 8#2E#”2G!BF!2;”AC”:J!E2JK1\/C”B:A!”@I12@2:C2D>!BE!JB”:J!CB!02!
\n“@I12@2:C2D!FBE!E2DKLC”B:!AH”I!2@”AA”B:A$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,,
\n#”””
\nList of Figures
\nT”JKE2!%!3 .RI2A!BF!HK@\/:!\/LC”#”C”2A!CH\/C!LB:CE”0KC2A!\/:D!E2AIB:A2A!CB!L1″@\/C2!
\nLH\/:J2$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)
\nT”JKE2!)!3 .RI2A!BF!\/”E!2@”AA”B:A$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+
\nT”JKE2!*!3 QFF2LCA!BF!JE22:HBKA2!J\/A2A!B:!CH2!\/C@BAIH2E2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+
\nT”JKE2!+!3 .RI2A!BF!2@”AA”B:A!J2:2E\/C2D!0R!AH”IA$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(
\nT”JKE2!-!3 Q12@2:CA!IEBDKL2D!DKE”:J!LB@0KAC”B:!IEBL2AA$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&
\nT”JKE2!(!3 =:C2E:\/C”B:\/1!0BD”2A!\/:D!LB:#2:C”B:A!E21\/C”:J!CB!\/”E!2@”AA”B:A!LB:CEB1$$$%P
\nT”JKE2!,!3 N2#21BI@2:C!BF!=:C2E:\/C”B:\/1!UB:F2E2:L2!\/:D!8EJ\/:”V\/C”B:!E21\/C”:J!CB!
\nE2DKLC”B:!BF!\/”E 2@”AA”B:A$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%%
\nT”JKE2!&!3 WRBCB!IEBCBLB1!I\/EC”L”I\/C”B:!@\/I$!XE22:3 LBK:CE”2A!GH”LH!H\/D!E\/C”F”2DY!
\nD\/EO!JE22:!\/E2 5::2;!=!\/:D!==!LBK:CE”2A!CH\/C!H\/#2!E\/C”F”2D!CH2!CE2\/CRY!\/:D!0EBG:!
\n\/E2!LBK:CE”2A!GH”LH!DB!:BC!”:C2:D CB!E\/C”FR$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%*
\nT”JKE2!’!3 7B1″C”L\/1!1\/R2EA!”:!C2E@A!BF!\/”E!2@”AA”B:A!IB1″L”2A!”@I12@2:C\/C”B:$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%’
\nT”JKE2!%P!3 62JK1\/C2D!”C2@A!K:D2E!456789!5::2;!<= $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)%
\nT”JKE2!%%!3 MK1IHKE!Q@”AA”B:!UB:CEB1!5E2\/A!ZMQU5A[$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)(
\nT”JKE2!%)!3 Q@”AA”B:!UB:CEB1!5E2\/A!CB!02!2:FBEL2D!”:!5KJKAC!)P%)>!1″@”C”:J!CH2!
\n2@”AA”B:!BF!M8;>!?8; \/:D!74$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$),
\nT”JKE2!%*!3 8#2E#”2G!B:!CH2!C”@21″:2!FBE!”@I12@2:C\/C”B:!BF!QU5A!K:D2E!456789!
\n5::2;!<=$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)&
\nT”JKE2!%+!3 TE\/LC”B:\/1!D”AC”11\/C”B:$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*)
\nT”JKE2!%-!3 MQQ47!IEBL2AA$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*’
\nT”JKE2!%(!3 8#2E#”2G!B:!CRI2A!BF!4\/EO2C30\/A2D!42LH\/:”A@A!42\/AKE2A$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+P
\nT”JKE2!%,!3 7BC2:C”\/1!AL\/12!BF!E2#2:K2A!G”CH!”@I12@2:C\/C”B:!BF!0K:O2E!12#R!\/A!
\nIEBIBA2D!0R!8;F\/@ \/:D!]]T$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+)
\nT”JKE2!%&!3 QFFBECA!\/:D!C2LH:B1BJ”2A!”:CEBDKL2!BE!K:D2EACKD”2D!LKEE2:C1R$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$++
\nT”JKE2!%’!3 .RI”L\/1!1\/RBKC!FBE!A2\/G\/C2E!ALEK002E$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+(
\nT”JKE2!)P!3 N?PPP!
\n)P>PPP!
\n*P>PPP!
\n+P>PPP!
\n-P>PPP!
\n(P>PPP!
\n,P>PPP!
\n.”11!hK1!
\n)P%P!
\n)P%P! .”11!h\/:!
\n)P%)!
\n)P%)! )P%-! )P)Pi!
\n!!”#
\n$%&'(%)&*+%),#-.’,#\/&)%0)(01##
\n2345678#4%%’9#:$;#
\nX1B0\/1!
\nQ@”AA”B:!
\nUB:CEB1!
\n5E2\/!ZQU5[!
\n)(
\n3.1.3 SECAs and ECAs
\nThe initial aim of implementing of Sulphur Emissions Control Areas (SECAs) is to
\nreduce sulphur oxide emissions (SOx) from ships to minimize the acidification of the
\natmosphere, which results in acid rain.
\nUnder the amendments to Annex VI, the term Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA) is
\nbeing replaced by Emission Control Area (ECA) to allow for specifying of limits for
\nNitrogen Oxide (NOx), and Particulate Matters (PM), which is known to have harmful
\neffect to human health and sensitive ecosystems. The first SECA, ie. the Baltic Sea came
\ninto force in 19 May 2005, and subsequently the North Sea and English Channel in 11
\nAugust 2007 followed suit.
\nFigure 11 – Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs).
\nSource: https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/severnesnow.com\/html\/emissions.php
\n),
\nOn 26 March 2010, IMO had adopted East and West Coast of the North America
\nContinent and the Hawaii islands extending up to 200 nautical miles as Emission Control
\nAreas (ECA) that will become enforceable in August 2012. The objective of designating
\nthese areas as ECA is to reduce ship-related health impacts in North America which
\nconcern public welfare. Some of the related impacts are contribution to the visibility
\nimpairment and other detrimental environmental impacts across the whole American
\ncontinent which has more than 30 major ports.
\nFigure 12 – Emission Control Areas to be enforced in August 2012, limiting the emission
\nof SOx, NOx and PM.
\nSource: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/epa.gov\/nonroad\/marine\/ci\/420f10015.htm)
\nThe adoption of SECAs and ECAs can be seen as a benefits going beyond simply
\nmonetary. The mitigating measures taken can be considered as external benefits for
\n)&
\npublic health and improvement of safety which could be considered under the overall
\nbenefit and costs gained by the public in the sum of economic benefits for all parties
\ninvolved.
\nThe limits within the SECAs will also be further reduced to 0.1 percent by 1 January
\n2015 as compared with current 1.0 percent. The amendment also includes progressive
\nreduction in NOx emissions from marine engines. Ships constructed on or after 1 January
\n2016, ie. Tier III engines will be required to comply with more stringent control measures
\nunder the NOx Technical Code. The following figure shows the proposed timeline for
\nprogressive reduction of ships emissions through imposing of ECAs.
\nFigure 13 – Overview on the timeline for implementation of ECAs under MARPOL
\nAnnex VI.
\nSource: Ferox.
\n3.2 Bunker
\nFuel oil quality that was previously under the matters between the shipowners and
\nsuppliers has now been made statutory in MARPOL Annex VI. Annex VI Regulation 18
\n)’
\nspecifies the fuel oil quality delivered to and used on board for combustion purposes;
\nlimits the SOx content; contains requirements preventing the existence of potentially
\nharmful substances and chemical waste; mandatory requirement for bunker delivery note
\nand sample of fuel oil delivered; and most importantly it makes the member states to
\nregister and declare the local fuel oil suppliers.
\n3.2.1 Quality: Problems with Low Sulphur Fuel
\nAs mentioned previously, one of the main contributors to the exhaust emissions from
\nships is via the fuel used on ships. The quality of fuel oil delivered to and used on board
\nships is currently regulated in MARPOL Annex VI, Regulation 18. In order to meet the
\nquality requirements, burning of Low Sulphur Fuel have been opted has one of the best
\nways for reduction of emission currently. However, Low Sulphur Fuel does possess
\ncertain difficulties. The problems identified are:
\n\u2022 Ignition and combustion problems due to low sulphur content and increased
\npresence of catalytic fines, abrasives that may damage the engine were identified
\nas some of the issues.
\n\u2022 The readiness and availability of supply of low sulphur fuel was another issue that
\nwas raised. Operational problems such as switching over to low sulphur fuel was
\nalso identified as another possible issue as any mismatch of timing would cause a
\nviolation of the SECA regulations.
\n\u2022 Larger bunker storage tanks required. Generally when distillate fuels are
\nmentioned, it is associated with two types of fuels, namely, marine diesel oil
\n(MDO) which constitute to approximately 1.5 percent of sulphur content; and
\nmarine gas oil (MGO) which constitutes approximately 1 percent of sulphur
\ncontent. Historically it has been proven that ships are able to switch from a higher
\n*P
\nsulphur content fuel, ie. HFO to a lower sulphur content sulphur fuel, ie. MDO.
\nMost vessels are required to switch to MDO when maneuvering within port
\nwaters of constraint waters, because it provides greater reliability on the
\npropulsion system during critical maneuvering. However, the traditional practices
\nof switching over are only for limited period of time. With the adoption of more
\nand larger ECAs, ships will be required to have sufficient bunker capacity for
\nlow-sulphur fuel for transiting the entire ECAs. If the ship were only plying
\nwithin an ECA then the problem would not be present, as it is purely eliminating
\nthe carriage of HFO to low-sulphur fuel. Nevertheless, due to the economical
\ninfluences in prices of low-sulphur fuel, ship owners and operators will most
\nprobably opt to burn two types of fuels onboard, ie. outside of ECA and within
\nECA. Hence, subjectively this problem would not be present if the global ECA is
\nimplemented in 2020. However, for bigger ships that do long-distance trade, it
\nwill be required to have two grade segregation tanks with carrying capacity in
\nexcess off what is required for the actual voyage.
\n\u2022 High cost. Switching to low-sulphur fuel is one of the most popular options
\ncurrently is using distillates to replace heavy fuel oil as there are minimal
\nmodification required to the ship structure, thence, minimal investment required.
\nReferring to the graph below, it is noticeable that the price of distillate may have
\nbeen influenced by the implementation of more SECAs, regional and national
\nregulations on restriction of sulphur emissions from ships. The cost of MGO has
\nbeen rising gradually since the addition of SECAs at North Sea and English
\nChannel in 2007. A drastically drop was observed in 2008 during the economic
\ncrisis, but the price has regained its position quickly for the last few years. Based
\non the historical trend, the price of distillates may increase by 10-20 percent when
\nthe latest North America ECA is in-force even before the implementation of
\nbunker levy. The following table shows the costs of distillates in major bunkering
\n*%
\nports around the world from 2006 to 2011. It is noted that other then the period
\nwhere the shipping industry suffers a crisis, the costs of distillates has been
\ngradually increasing, especially since the implementation of regional policies to
\nreduce ships\u2019 emissions such as SECAs.
\nTable 4 – Development of bunker fuel prices from 2006 to 2011.
\nSource: Unpublished, summarized by author based on statistics collated by Maritime and Port Authority of
\nSingapore, master\u2019s dissertation, World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.
\n3.2.2 Supply
\nIt appears that the easiest and most economical way to comply with emission
\nrequirements is the burning of low-sulphur fuel, as compared with investment of highend technology which is expensive and may not guarantee a return of investment value.
\nThis preferred option in the industry generally, is already pre-empted as a problem if the
\nglobal emission control is to be implemented by 2020. So a scenario of a sky rocketing
\nprice for low-sulphur fuel may be created, while on the other hand, the price for HFO
\nmay drop tremendously. So, this might be the only reason where a ship owner may
\nP!
\n)PP!
\n+PP!
\n(PP!
\n&PP!
\n%PPP!
\n%)PP!
\n)PP(! )PP,! )PP&! )PP’! )P%P! )P%%!Zh\/:3hK1[!
\n6(*<‘#
\n=+1&1#+>#?-7#)%0#3@7#>(+”#ABBC#&+#ABDD#
\nM”:J\/IBE2!3!
\ndT8!
\nM”:J\/IBE2!3!
\n4X8!
\n6BCC2ED\/@!3!
\ndT8!!
\n6BCC2ED\/@!3!
\n4X8!
\ndBKACB:!3!
\ndT8!
\nbKA\/:!3!dT8!
\nbKA\/:!3!4X8!
\nTKj\/”E\/H!3!
\ndT8!!
\nTKj\/”E\/H!3!
\n4X8!
\n*)
\nconsider the higher investment of technology on their new build. However, the study on
\nsupply and demand required from the shipping industry may not pose a sufficient
\nduration for a company to make fast enough decision and investment to ride on this wave.
\nThere are currently two methods where low-sulphur fuels can be produced:
\n1. usage of residues from low-sulphur content crude (commonly known as \u201csweet\u201d
\ncrude)
\n2. De-sulphurigation and blending of generic crude oils.
\nFigure 14 – Fractional distillation.
\nSource: http:\/\/esfscience.wordpress.com\/2008\/09\/08\/fractional-distillation\/
\n3.2.2.1 Economic Issues
\nThe production of petroleum distillates are much more complicated as compared to heavy
\nfuel oil and with the increase in demand for the distillates due to the reduction of SOx
\nlimits, will therefore drive the price for distillates higher especially when compared to
\nheavy fuel oil. A study involving the analysis and review of the price levels of the
\ndifferent types of fuels, ranging from heavy fuel oil with sulphur content of 3.5 percent to
\n**
\nsulphur reduced heavy fuel oil of 1.0 percent, and distillates with a maximum of 0.1
\npercent sulphur show that the price of distillates by 2015 could range between USD 850
\nto 1,300. When the price is compared with heavy fuel oil of sulphur content of 1.0
\npercent, it means a disadvantage of approximately USD 300 to 600 per ton fuel9
\n. The
\nconsequence of these is that operating ships in SECAs will become more expensive than
\nin other areas. Hence, it raises concerns of disproportion in competition of shipping.
\nAnother mode of transportation replacing of shipping could evolve to reduce the cost
\nimpact.
\nKey ship owner and operator had also expressed concerns in the development of the
\nimplementation of global ECA, as they had opined that the quickest solution to meet the
\nrequirement will be turning to low-sulphur fuel, as compared to high value investment to
\nalter the ship\u2019s structure10.
\n3.3 Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
\nIt is through the influence of the Kyoto Protocol that makes shipping to take an
\naccelerated step to put provisions in place to reduce ships\u2019 emissions. The protocol
\ncategorise shipping into two different types, i.e. domestic and international shipping.
\nDomestic shipping is targeted at the developed countries (ie. Annex I). This group had
\nofficially committed to a reduction of 5.2 percent from 2008 to 2012 as compared with
\nthe 1990 level on four types of GHG (ie. CO2, methane, NOx, SOx).
\n3.3.1 IMO GHG Studies
\nThe 2000 IMO GHG study was the first study conducted to examine the status of air
\npollutants from international shipping. The study had identified that the main cause of
\n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ‘ Reduction of sulphur content of shipping fuels further to 0.1% in the North Sea and Baltic Sea in 2015:
\nConsequences for shipping in this shipping area, Bremen, September 2010.
\n%P Refer to interviews with Zodiac and un-named shipowner.
\n*+
\nshipping emissions resulted from marine engine exhaust emissions. Hence, an analysis on
\nthe marine \u2018emission inventory\u2019 was carried out with the focus on bunker fuels, as it is
\nthe main feed to marine engines. The factors used were the fuel-consumption
\nmethodology and statistical emission model. Recommendations were then made to
\nconduct further assessments on effects of NOx, SOx and CO2 emissions from ships.
\nThe second IMO GHG 2009 Study estimated the potential for reduction of emission
\nusing different technologies and practices, cost effectiveness and Assessment of policy
\noptions which are under considerations. The Study reaches several significant
\nconclusions:
\n\u2022 In 2007, international shipping was estimated to have emitted 870 million tonnes,
\nor about 2.7 percent of the global manmade emission of CO2;
\n\u2022 Mid-range emission scenarios suggested that by 2050, without any reduction
\npolicies in place, ship emission may grow by 150 to 250 percent as a result of
\ngrowth in world trade;
\n\u2022 A significant potential for reduction of GHG through technical and operational
\nmeasures had been identified. If all measures are implemented, including
\nreduction in operational speed, by 2050, it is estimated that the emission rate will
\nreduce below the current levels on a tonnes\/mile basis.
\n\u2022 With regards to emission trading, it was viewed as not viable for emission
\nallocation, however a system of emission credits to ship owners for reducing
\nemission below the baseline was considered possible. The Assessment of the report
\nwas deferred till April 2001, MEPC 46, where decision was made to form a
\nworking group to consider the issues on short and long term measures for
\nreduction of emissions. In the December 2003 IMO assembly, MEPC was
\nassigned to identify and develop mechanisms for reduction of GHG emissions
\nfrom international shipping including development of a GHG baseline; the
\n*-
\ndevelopment of a GHG emission index for ships. MEPC was also tasked to
\ndevelop guidelines for application efficiency index and to evaluate technical,
\noperational and market-based solutions.
\nThe feasibility report carried out by IMO advocated an approach to explore feasibility of
\nvoluntary GHG limits or environmental indexing, and recommended that the work should
\npreferably start on, the design of new ships and perhaps on existing ships and the
\nprospect of \u2018credit trading\u2019 from additional abatement measures for new and existing
\nships.
\nTechnical measures identified for reduction of shipping emissions include,
\n\u2022 Optimized hull shape and propeller design;
\n\u2022 Improved diesel engine efficiency;
\n\u2022 Waste heat recovery systems, hull and propeller maintenance; and
\n\u2022 Use of alternative fuels.
\nOperational measures include,
\n\u2022 Fleet planning;
\n\u2022 Use of higher quality fuel;
\n\u2022 Optimized weather routeing and \u2018just in time\u2019 voyage planning.
\nThe report also identified \u2018slow steaming\u2019 as the particular measure that would result in
\nthe highest achievement of CO2 reduction; a speed reduction of 10% by the world fleet
\ncould reduce CO2 emissions by 23.3 percent by 2010. If speed reduction is used in
\ncombination with technical and operational measures as mentioned above, there is a
\npossibility of 40 percent CO2 reduction by 2010 and 50 percent by 2020.11 Taking the
\n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %% Study from Greenhouse Gas from Ships, Final Report to IMO, 2000, MARINTEK, ECON, Carnegie
\nMellon, and DNV.
\n*(
\nrecommendations from the study into consideration, MEPC had been tasked to
\ndevelopment measures to curb GHG emissions from new ships.
\n3.3.2 Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and Ship Energy Efficiency
\nManagement Plan (SEEMP)
\nAt the 62nd MEPC session held from 11 to 15 July 2011, IMO had finally adopted the
\ncriteria for EEDI after several years of deliberation. EEDI is a design index meant for
\nnew ships to promote innovation and technical development influencing the energy
\nefficient of the ship at the design stage, and a Ship Management Plan: for existing and
\nnew ships that incorporates the best practices for fuel efficiency for the operation of
\nships.
\nThe objective of EEDI is to use the minimum required energy level to undertake the same
\ntransport work. This includes continuous challenging of the technical development of all
\nrelated components influencing the fuel efficiency of a ship; and separating the technical
\nand design-based measures in terms of operational and commercial.
\nThe EEDI is based on a formula in IMO and the formula possess four element addressing
\nimportant part of air pollution namely emissions from marine diesel engines, other
\nenergy-saving structural or technology on board and operational and design efficiency of
\nships. Following formula detailed the components of the formula. This formula is only
\napplicable for new ships.
\n*,
\nThe CO2 emission represents the total CO2 emission from the combustion of fuel,
\nincluding the propulsion and auxiliary engines and boilers, incorporating the carbon
\ncontents of fuels. The transport work is derived by multiplying the ship\u2019s capacity (dwt),
\nas designed, with the ship\u2019s design speed measured at the maximum design load
\ncondition and at 75 percent of the rated installed shaft power.
\nIMO had set the reduction rate to three stages, the reduction during the first stage is set at
\n10 percent with five yearly reviews to keep pace with the development of new
\ntechnologies. From 2025 to 2030, IMO has set the reduction to 30 percent as a mandated
\nrate for most ship types. Nevertheless, it still invites various criticisms from the industry
\non the practicality of such a measure. The following table briefly summarises the
\ndisadvantages faced by the current EEDI formula.
\nTable 5 – Issues raised with regards to EEDI.
\nPerformance measures Issues Possible impact
\nLimitation of installed
\npower
\nAbsence of speed factor Affects operational model
\nEngine Ineffective if ship is not at
\nfull speed
\nIncrease in fuel
\nconsumption
\nShip types Formula incompatible for
\nsome ship types
\nInstability
\nSource: Summarised by author, master\u2019s dissertation, Malmo, World Maritime University.
\n*&
\nFirstly, it was opined that it would be unsafe for bigger ships as the EEDI would reduce
\nthe installed power drastically. For example, in Phase 3 EEDI will require a VLCC to
\nreduce its installed power by half. The proposed formula was found to have omitted the
\nfactor of speed, which is proposed to be studied at a later stage by IMO. This factor is
\nseen to be crucial by the industry as it affects the operational model depending on the
\ntype of ship.
\nSecondly, the EEDI may be seen as ineffective, as compared with ships which are already
\non slow steaming. As EEDI principle is to limit the installed power, there will be a
\ntendency for smaller bore and higher revolutions-per-minute-engines to be used. This is
\nonly effective when the ship is on full speed. On the other hand, if the speed of the ships
\nis low, the ship that complied with the EEDI will experience a significant increase in
\nwave resistance, which will lead to the fact that when compared with existing ships
\nwhich are on slow-steaming, EEDI compliant ships will be more inefficient. IMO had
\nqualified the arguments by indicating that it is a wrong concept to assume that a reduction
\nin installed power will requires a reduction of engine bore and an increment in rpm. It
\ncounter-argued that the most effective way is to limit the \u201cmaximum\u201d rpm which will
\nresult in increasing propeller efficiency; or to install one less cylinder which will result in
\nless fuel consumption12. IMO had also concluded that if the EEDI were implemented in
\n2013 for all new ships, it would remove 40 to 50 million tonnes of CO2 from the
\natmosphere annually by 2020.
\nThirdly, the applicability of EEDI on all ship types has also been questioned. Several
\nrenowned institutes had applied the EEDI formula on tankers and Ro-ro vessels and
\n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %) https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/imo.org\/MediaCentre\/HotTopics\/GHG\/Pages\/default.aspx
\n*’
\ncommented that strict application may caused ships to be unsafe13. Hence, further
\nrefinement of the EEDI formula will be required and should not be applied universally.
\nUnlike the EEDI, Ship Energy Efficiency Plan (SEEMP) is designed for existing ship to
\nmonitor its efficiency and optimize the performance of the ship. The objective of SEEMP
\nis to develop a mechanism for the company to improve the ship\u2019s operation efficiency by
\nlinking the specific ships SEEMP to the company\u2019s energy management policy. The
\nfollowing figure illustrates the process of SEEMP.
\nFigure 15 – SEEMP process.
\nSource: Summarised by author based on information in MEPC 59\/24\/Add1. Annex 19, master\u2019s
\ndissertation, Malmo, World Maritime University.
\n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %* Jack Devanney, head of centre for tankship excellence; Report on EEDI, prepared by Deltamarin for
\nEuropean Maritime Safety Agency; and The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for Ro-ro Vessels by
\nStefan Kruger, Technische Universitat Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg\/ Germany.
\nUB@I\/:R!
\nQ:2EJR!
\n7B1″L”2A!
\n71\/::”:J!
\n=@I12@2:C\/C”B:!
\nM21F32#\/1K\/C”B:! @B:”CBE”:J!!
\n=@IEB#2@2:C!
\n+P
\n3.3.3 Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI)
\nThe Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) is meant to enable ship owners and
\noperators to measure their ships\u2019 energy efficiency level. This index is express in terms of
\nCO2 per ton mile, for measurement of a specific ship and make it available for
\ncomparison with other similar ships. It also acts as a monitoring tool and benchmark for
\nthe mandatory management tool for energy efficient ship operation (SEEMP).
\n3.3.4 Market-based Measures (MBMs)
\nThe Market-based Mechanisms is referred to as a policy tool for reduction of air
\nemissions. It was first introduced in the Kyoto Protocol as an additional means to Help
\nthe countries to meet their national goal towards emission reduction. The following figure
\nshows list of mechanisms and measures being introduced or still pending Assessment in
\ndifferent sectors.
\nFigure 16 – Overview on types of Market-based Mechanisms\/ Measures.
\nSource: Created by author based on information from research materials, master\u2019s dissertation, Malmo,
\nWorld Maritime University.
\nUNFCCC
\nKyoto Protocol
\nMarket-based
\nMechanisms
\nEmissions
\nTrading
\nClean
\nDevelopment
\nMechanism
\nJoint
\nImplementation
\nIMO
\nMarket-based
\nMeasures (Under
\nAssessment)
\nEmissions
\nTrading Schemes
\nBunker Levy
\n(Carbon Charge)
\nICAO
\nMarket-based
\nMeasures (Under
\nAssessment)
\nEmissions
\nTrading
\nLevies and Taxes
\nrelated to
\nemissions
\nEmissions
\noffsetting
\n+%
\nThe proposed maritime Market-based Measures (MBMs) serve two main purposes:
\n1. off-set the growing ships emissions in other sectors and provide an economic
\nincentive for the maritime industry to invest in more fuel efficient ships and
\ntechnology;
\n2. to operate ships in a more energy-efficient manner.
\nThe MBMs proposals range from schemes for contribution or levy on all CO2 emissions
\nfrom international shipping, or only from ships that do not meet the EEDI requirement,
\nvia emission trading schemes (ETS), to schemes based on a ship\u2019s actual efficiency
\ndetermined through its design (EEDI) and operation (EEOI).
\n3.3.4.1 Description of bunker levies
\nCarbon charge on bunker fuel
\nAs discussed earlier, the main cause of emissions of SOx and NOx through combustion
\nemits from the fuel consumed by ships. It appears that the most rational way to
\ndiscourage the persistence usage of such fuel is to impose a carbon charge on bunker fuel.
\nHowever, this policy will increase the cost of bunker fuel, and may result in some
\npositive as well as some negative effects: reductions in the amount of maritime traffic, as
\nsome may chose alternative mode of transportation; efficiency improvements in marine
\nengine and ship designs; efficiency improvements in ships operations; switching of ships
\ntypes, such as ships with lower emissions level and higher efficiency counter; and lastly
\nswitching to alternative fuels14.
\nThe charging of carbon taxes also faces political resistance. As the introduction of such
\nan instrument will put countries with intensive industries to be less competitive in the
\n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %+ Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships, March 2000, MARINTEK.
\n+)
\ninternational markets due to the higher costs involved, unless a global use of common
\ncarbon charges on international shipping can be adopted.
\nThe Oxfam and World Wide Fund (WWF) had published a report in September 2011 on
\na proposal to coming COP17 in December this year. The proposal calls for imposing
\ncarbon tax on international shipping, which is belief to reduce emissions from ships
\nsignificantly by 33 percent by 2020 as compared with EEDI, which will only reduce
\nemission by 1 percent by 2020. The revenue generated will be divided between the
\n\u2018Green Climate Fund\u2019 with a portion retain for maritime sector, and as compensatory
\nrebates for the developing countries. The following figure illustrates the proposal in
\ndetailed.
\nFigure 17 – Potential scale of revenues with implementation of bunker levy as proposed
\nby Oxfam and WWF
\nSource: Created by author based on information from Oxfam\/WWF analysis report, master\u2019s dissertation,
\nMalmo, World Maritime University.
\nbK:O2E!12#R!\/C!
\nk)-!I2E!CB::2
\nTK21!LBAC!0R!%Pl
\n.BC\/1!E2#2:K2!
\nJ2:2E\/C2D!
\nk)-0:!I2E!R2\/E!”:!)P)P
\nUB@I2:A\/CBER!E20\/C2A!CB!
\nD2#21BI”:J!LBK:CE”2A$
\n5LLBED”:J!CB l!AH\/E2A!BF!J1B0\/1!”@IBECA!
\n0R!A2\/$!CE’2″&72% #%O72%’$(*$a#&F’#G>H*<*’%(+”#
\n4,&'(%)&*J’1#-.’,1#
\ndRDEBJ2:!
\n9?X!
\n?KL12\/E!7BG2E!
\nN”2A21!Q:J”:2A!=@IEB#2@2:CA!
\n-*
\ntransportation has also starts to develop technology to eliminate ships\u2019 emission while the
\nships is at berth.
\n4.3.1 Cold Ironing
\nCold ironing, also known as shore power is one of the technology that eliminates SOx,
\nNOx and CO2 emissions from ships to almost zero level when the ship is at berth. The
\nship will plug into the port electric grid while in port and cease using it\u2019s diesel auxiliary
\nengine and boiler. Currently only a few ports in the USA including California are
\nproviding such technology in their ports. However, there are hiccups faced in
\nimplementing this technology further. The \u2018plug-in\u2019 point is not universal. So far, in this
\ncase, ships will be required to be equipped with different \u2018plug-in\u2019 designs when calling
\nat different ports. It was also discussed that this technology is not an ideal approach for
\nreduction of emissions globally, as emissions from shipping may be transferred to land
\nbased power stations instead. Nevertheless, cold ironing is not a permanent solution for
\nship emissions as it can only be made used of when the ship is in port.
\nFigure 22 – Typical layout for cold ironing installation in port.
\nSource: https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/shoreportshippower.com\/
\n-+
\n4.4 Conclusion
\nThis chapter has summarises the three different areas of technologies developed to
\naddress the ships\u2019 emissions, and alternative fuels in replacement of fossil fuels. It also
\ndiscussed on the pros and cons of each of the technologies and alternative fuels proposed
\nthus far. Nevertheless, these technologies are not widely make use of by the shipping
\nindustry at the moment as most of it requires big investment on the ship\u2019s infrastructure,
\nother than cold ironing. However, cold ironing also possess it\u2019s own problem such as
\nunification of shore connection, and limited availability in ports. Now that we have seen
\nthe existing and developing technology and alternatives, we will look at other form of
\nmethods to reduce ships\u2019 emissions in port, i.e. incentive schemes.
\n—
\n5. ECONOMICAL INFLUENCES \/EFFORTS FROM VARIOUS
\nPORTS
\nPrior to the agreement was reached at the 62nd MEPC, several nations had came up with
\ndifferent policies to cap emissions within their jurisdictions. Some countries and regions
\nhad gone ahead to implement legislation or voluntary programmes to reduce emissions
\nfrom ships within their jurisdictions. Some went ahead with mandatory requirements
\nunder their legislation, but providing certain incentives if ships were able to comply,
\nwhile the rest went with voluntary agreement programmes, while at the same time also
\nprovide incentives to ships that voluntarily take necessary actions to reduce emissions
\nwhile in port. Voluntary programmes may range from agreements or a declaration of
\nintent between the industry, or, a company with the government. Such agreements or
\ndeclaration mainly focuses on the on reduction of emissions with various ways of
\nimplementations such as fuel switching, special technology, operational measures etc.
\n5.1 Green Port Developments
\nOver the past few years, there is an increased focus on the marine environment, which
\nhas led to corresponding calls to regulate international shipping more closely, as well as
\nefforts to encourage sustainable developments of seaports. As a result of this bourgeoning
\n\u201cGreen Port Culture\u201d, many ports, in particular those in Europe and North America, have
\nvoluntarily adopted environmentally-effective practices and operations, like the
\ninstallation of solar panels on their buildings, provision of shore power for vessels at
\nberth and regulation of emission from port equipment, prime movers and other
\nmachinery.
\n-(
\nPorts also come together through collaborative agreements to not only encourage the
\nadoption of best practices for terminal operators, but also introduce schemes to
\nincentivise ships calling at their ports to reduce their pollution level.
\n5.1.1 EU Regulations
\nThe EU directive 2005\/33\/EC17 regulates the limits of sulphur content of marine fuel
\noils. The directive prohibits the used of marine fuel oils with sulphur content above 1.0
\npercent after July 2010 for passenger ships that ply regularly at community ports. This
\nrestriction also applies to ships that transit through SOx emission control areas (SECA)
\nspecified by IMO. Restrictions are also placed on exhaust gas cleaning technology such
\nas seawater scrubbers. It has to show that the resultant emission has no adverse effects
\non the ecosystems. On 1 January 2011, EU had implemented its requirements for ships
\nthat transit within EU ports and inland waterways to burn marine fuel oils with sulphur
\ncontent of 0.1 percent or less.
\n5.1.2 US Regulations
\nThe MARPOL Annex VI requirements came into force on 8 January 2009 in US as part
\nof the Maritime Pollution Protection Act of 2008. This enactment emphasizes the greater
\nawareness raise in the US with regard to ship emissions. Because of the federal structure
\nof US, the state has the power to introduce local regulations, which may be more
\nstringent.
\n5.1.3 California Regulations
\nThe State of California had promulgated national regulations to curb SOx, NOx and
\nParticulate Matters emissions for ocean-going vessel within its internal waters and
\n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %, EU directive is a legislative act of the European Union which requires the member states to comply
\nwithout dictating the means of achieving that result.
\n-,
\ntwenty-four nautical miles from its baseline. These regulations specified the sulphur
\ncontent limits for marine gas oil (MGO) and marine diesel oil (MDO) in two parts: for
\nthe use of auxiliary diesel engines and main engines and auxiliary boilers as follows:
\n1. Auxiliary diesel engines,
\na. From the entry of the regulation till 30 December 2012, MGO with
\nmaximum SOx content 1.5 percent, or MDO of maximum SOx content of
\n0.5 percent may be used;
\nb. From January 2012, MDO and MGO with maximum SOx content of 0.1
\npercent shall be used.
\n2. Main engines and auxiliary boilers,
\na. From 1 July 2009, MGO with maximum SOx content of 1.5 percent, or
\nMDO of 0.5 percent may be used;
\nb. From 1 January 2012, MDO and MGO with maximum SOx content of 0.1
\npercent shall be used.
\nA detailed comparison table on the implemented and adopted regulations (to be in-force
\nin near future) is drawn up in Appendix 3.
\n5.2 Low-sulphur Schemes on voluntary basis
\n\u2022 Several container-shipping lines have signed up for voluntary low-sulphur
\nschemes being subjected to trials in Chinese and US ports. The Taiwanese line
\nEvergreen has announced its participation in Hong Kong\u2019s Fair Winds Charter
\nand the port of New York and New Jersey\u2019s Ocean-Going Vessel Low-Sulphur
\nFuel Program. The programme is an action element of the Clean Air Strategy and
\nencourages operators of ocean-going vessels calling at certain PANYNJ marine
\nterminals to use low sulphur fuel, and reduce vessels\u2019 speed to an average of 10
\n-&
\nknots or less. The programme will reimburse vessel operators for 50 percent of
\nthe cost difference between Marine Gas Oil (MGO) or Marine Diesel Oil (MDO),
\nand IFO380 in their main engines while operating within 20 nautical miles of the
\nPort of NY & NJ.
\n\u2022 Similarly, container carrier APL said its ships would use low sulphur fuel when
\ncalling at terminals in the Port of New York and New Jersey. The agreement is
\npart of a port authority program designed to curb emissions in New York
\nHarbour. Under the plan, APL vessels will use low-sulphur fuel in auxiliary
\ngenerators while berthed. The port authority will reimburse half of the added cost
\nAPL incurs by using low-sulphur fuel. According to APL, low-sulphur fuel can
\nreduce particulate matter emissions by 75 percent and sulphur oxides by more
\nthan 85 percent. APL has long been part of similar programs at the ports of Los
\nAngeles, Oakland, Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia.
\n\u2022 In September 2010, Maersk Line initiated a switch to using cleaner, low-sulphur
\nfuel when it calls into Hong Kong. The approximate 850 port calls a year by
\nMaersk at Hong Kong is estimated to cost an additional US$1 million annually to
\nthe company. This kick-off is the first voluntary fuel switch scheme in Asia. APL
\nfollowed the trend by switching over to low-sulphur fuel in Hong Kong from
\nOctober 2010.
\n\u2022 In Hong Kong, Evergreen will use fuel with a sulphur content of under 0.1
\npercent from the beginning of November 2010 until the end of December 2012
\nand will involve its ten most environmentally friendly vessels. Hamburg Sud and
\nAlianca are testing the use of low sulphur fuels while at berth in Hong Kong and
\nare participating in an initiative to cut emissions at the port. The two companies
\n-‘
\nare joining the Fair Winds Charter Initiative which aims to sustainably improve
\nair quality in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta.
\n\u2022 On 12 April 2011, Singapore has launched a series of green initiative programmes
\n\u2013 \u2018Green Ship Programme\u2019, \u2018Green Port Pragramme\u2019, and \u2018Green Technology
\nProgramme\u2019, following a voluntary scheme called the \u2018Green Pledge\u2019 with 12
\norganizations pledging their efforts to promote and undertakes environmental
\nfriendly and energy efficiency practices. The details of these initiatives will be
\nfurther discussed in the following chapter.
\n\u2022 The Republic of Korea18 (ROK) has two strategies in the adoption of air emission
\ncontrol plan. Firstly, the implementation of international instruments to the
\nnational industries such as, the shipping industry, shipbuilding industry and oil
\nrefinery industry to ensure they meet international requirements. This will fulfill
\nROK\u2019s responsibility as a flag State. Secondly, the Government has the long-term
\nplan for the preservation of air from land and ships in order to foster the
\nsustainable development of land and sea under \u2018the National Green Growth
\nPolicy\u2019. According to the national policy, not only emission of NOx and SOx but
\nalso other green house gases will be controlled strictly in all areas of industry.
\n5.3 Index measurement Schemes
\nUnlike the direct incentive schemes as describes above. The \u201cIndex Measurement
\nSchemes\u201d takes the approach of measuring the operational efficiency performance of the
\nships and provides rewards and recognition to the ship owners. These schemes are
\nnormally aim at a larger implementation area beyond the State\u2019s own ports.
\n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %& Based on interview via questionnaire with Ministry of Land, Transportation, and Maritime Affairs of
\nKorea.
\n(P
\n5.3.1 ESI launch in 2011 with clean ships to be rewarded in European ports
\nThe International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), backed by five major
\nEuropean Ports, had launched a scheme aimed at significantly reducing vessel emissions.
\nCommencing Jan 2011, the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) will introduce the
\nEnvironmental Ship Index (ESI) – an international standard for calculating emissions by
\nships. Making use of the index, ports and other nautical service providers will be able to
\nreward low-emission ships, and contribute to encouraging sustainability within the sector.
\nParticipating vessels will receive a certificate that may form the basis of a reward system
\nemployed by ports and other nautical service providers, discounting port dues, rates and
\nalike. The ESI identifies those seagoing vessels that perform ahead of standards relating
\nto emission reduction required by the current MARPOL Annex VI standards for nitrogen
\noxide (NOx) and sulphur oxide (SOx). In addition, the ESI also tests the presence of a
\nmanagement plan for greenhouse gas emissions of a particular vessel. Five initiator of the
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) \u2013 Hamburg, Bremen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp \u2013 have all indicated
\nthat they will use the ESI to reward clean ships, as well as promote sustainability.
\nESI-registered vessels of all types that exceed the current minimum IMO environmental
\nstandards will be in line for a rebate at half a dozen hubs, which include Bremen, Le
\nHavre and Amsterdam. Each individual port will set its own qualifying benchmark, with
\nAmsterdam indicating that its rebates will begin at an index score of 20 or above, while
\nthe percentage level of rebate will also be left to each port. The Port of Rotterdam would
\napply an average 5 percent rebate for complying vessels, which it estimated as a 1 percent
\noverall annual rebate, implying an annual ESI cost of around $3 million euros in 2008.
\nThe Port of Amsterdam has stated that a typical 10,000 tonne vessel scoring above 20
\nindex points could be in line for a $300 euros rebate on port dues of around $8,000 euros.
\nThe index shows the environmental performance of ships in terms of their emissions of
\nair pollutants (NOx and SOx) and CO2.
\n(%
\n5.3.2 Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
\nDP World, which operates more than 50 container terminals across the world, has joined
\nthe Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). CDP was established in 2000 and it acts as a
\ndisclosure and reporting framework. It is used by 3,000 of the world\u2019s largest companies
\nto report their GHG emissions and climate change strategies. The move reflects the port
\noperator\u2019s broad base and global sustainability programme. For several years, DP World
\nhas been introducing new\/retrofitting certain existing handling equipment in its terminals
\nwhile implementing a range of \u2018green business practices\u2019 as it has sought to reduce its
\nenvironmental footprint. DP World has indicated that the group has a five-year plan in
\nplace to reduce emissions by 27 percent. In a recent public filing to the CDP, the group
\nsaid its greenhouse gas emissions at its operational terminals totalled 830,715 tonnes of
\nequivalent CO2. This compared with 867,533 tonnes in 2008.
\n5.4 Conclusion
\nIt is instructive to explore the benefits of mandatory legislation versus voluntary policy
\napproach. At a quick glance, voluntary programmes may appear to be weaker policy as
\ncompared with mandatory legislation. As mandatory legislation ensures a level playing
\nfield requiring all ships to comply with the standards and failing so it will be penalized.
\nCommercially this is may be an ideal approach, as all ships are required to make similar
\ninvestments to achieve the given target. On the contrary, this approach may not
\nencourage any further initiatives or innovation to do more than what is required. The
\nvoluntary policy may appear to have an upper hand on this part. In this approach, only
\ncompanies and industries that are willing or are ready to take a step further will come
\nforward to make such commitments. Their initiatives are partly compensated through
\nincentives such as reduction of port dues, or indexing efficiency programmes. The bigger
\nbenefit of this approach is that, the company or industry which makes such a commitment
\nwill gain public awareness on their commitment and this is a plus point in terms of
\nbusiness branding and strategy, which will not be visible in mandatory legislation.
\n()
\nAfter analyzing the different incentive approaches by major ports, we will discuss the
\napproach by Port of Singapore towards reduction of ships\u2019 emissions in port and from it\u2019s
\nflagged ships.
\n(*
\n6. CHALLENGES FACED BY SINGAPORE IN ENFORCEMENT
\nOF EMISSIONS CONTROL POLICIES
\nEnsuring a sustainable clean and green environment has always been the motto for
\nSingapore. This is carried out at the national level through various programmes, such as
\npollution control, waste management and energy efficiency.
\nThe raise of international awareness on reduction of emissions from ships is also part of
\nthe reason for Port of Singapore to embrace policies to reduce air emissions from ships in
\nport, and for ships registered under Singapore Registry. In April this year, Maritime and
\nPort Authority of Singapore (MPA) had introduced several \u201cgreen\u201d measures to promote
\nenvironmental friendly practices in port.
\n6.1. Description of Singapore\u2019s \u2018Green\u2019 Policy
\nSingapore\u2019s maritime \u2018Green Initiative\u201d is summarized in the following table. Generally
\nit is a three-pronged approach targeting all maritime related audiences, ie. Singapore
\nRegister Ships, Ocean-going ships entering Singapore waters, and local harbour craft and
\nterminals.
\nTable 7 – Singapore’s maritime ‘green’ initiatives.
\nSource: Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, master\u2019s dissertation, World Maritime University,
\nMalmo, Sweden.
\n(+
\n\u2022 The \u2018Green Ship Programme\u2019 objective is to encourage the reduction of GHG
\nemissions from the Singapore Register Ships. The main determining factor for
\ncompliance under this part is the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
\nmeasurements. The incentive under this programme consists of both finance and
\nrecognition: issuance of \u2018Green Recognition\u2019 letter and \u2018Green ship of the year\u2019
\naward, and monetary rewards of up to 50 percent reduction in Initial Registration
\nFees and 20 percent rebate on Annual Tonnage Tax. The following flow chart
\nbriefly describes the procedure of qualifying a Singapore Register Ship as a
\n\u2018Green Ship\u2019.
\nFigure 23 – Procedure of qualifying as a ‘Green Ship’ under Singapore Registry.
\nSource: Summarized by author based on information provided by Maritime and Port Authority of
\nSingapore, master\u2019s dissertation, World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.
\n(-
\n\u2022 The \u2018Green Port Programme\u2019 is an initiative targeted at ocean-going ships
\nentering Singapore waters. The aim is to reduce the emissions of SOx and NOx
\nwhile the ships is operating within the port. There are two main criteria under this
\nprogramme, the use of type-approved abatement or scrubber technology; and use
\nof low sulphur fuel within the port limits (<1.0% SOx content). Ships that are able
\nto comply with the above conditions will qualify for a 15 percent port due
\nconcession. The determining factor for compliance under this part is based on a
\ndeclaration by the ship that it has complied with the programme\u2019s criteria.
\n\u2022 The targeted groups under the \u2018Green Tech Programme\u2019 are the local shipping
\nlines, harbor craft operators, and Terminals. The criteria for qualifying under this
\nprogramme are that presentation of original project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s that shows reduction in
\nemissions of SOx, NOx and CO2. However, the system integration design and
\nretrofitting or installation has to be done in Singapore.
\n6.2 Challenges Faced
\nAlthough Singapore stands as the World\u2019s top bunkering port, it faces numerous
\nchallenges in effectively implementing emission reduction measures due to several
\nreasons such as the following:
\n\u2022 Geographical constraint. Singapore is situated among the neighbouring countries
\nof Peninsular Malaysia and Indonesia. Currently, a ship that is undertaking the
\n\u2018Green Port Programme\u2019 will shift over to low sulphur fuel when it is in
\nSingapore port waters, which is less than 3 nautical miles away from the main
\nisland. Ships that are transiting in channel in between Singapore and Malaysia
\nmay not be required to shift over. Hence, the effectiveness of reduction of
\nemission impact may be questionable.
\n((
\n\u2022 As the World\u2019s top bunkering port, Singapore faces challenges and pressure to
\npromote the usage of low sulphur fuel to support the reduction of emissions from
\nships. However, economically this will have a substantive impact on the local
\nbunker industry if the supply of low sulphur fuel is not readily available, ie.
\nsupply vs. demand. Technically, further investment will also be required from the
\nbunker tanker operators to provide better segregation for the distillates to ensure
\nthe quality of the fuels.
\n\u2022 Singapore presently also stands as the world\u2019s busiest port with approximately a
\nthousand movements per day. With the high traffic density and ships arrivals,
\nphysical checking for compliance on each ship will be an uphill task.
\nEnforcement \u2013 with the high number of arrivals, it is almost impossible to have
\ndetailed checks on compliance. With that, it deduces on the calculation method
\nfor ships that can be qualified for the incentive schemes.
\n6.3 Conclusion
\nSingapore has take two main approach when introducing policies to reduce air emissions
\nfrom ships, i.e. its international obligations as a member state to IMO and MARPOL
\nAnnex VI, and domestically as a responsible coastal state. It has promote the reduction of
\nair emissions from ships by providing incentives to it\u2019s flagged ships, and domestic
\nharbor craft and ships calling at it\u2019s ports. It also promotes the local terminal by providing
\nresearch funds to local companies in developing more innovations for reduction of air
\nemissions. These steps are a good beginning to prime for bigger steps to be taken in the
\nfuture. Been geographically situation within other two countries (i.e. Peninsular Malaysia
\nand Indonesia) and the Straits of Malacca and Singapore the world busiest straits,
\nregional efforts may be the next steps to look at to promote reduction of air emissions
\nfrom ships.
\n(,
\n6.4 Recommendations
\nAs mentioned in this chapter, the voluntary measures introduced by Singapore are pretty
\nrecent (April 2011) and it covers the three main areas: Singapore flagged ships, ports and
\nterminals operating in Singapore, and harbor craft and foreign ships calling Singapore.
\nHence, there should be a period of \u2018observations\u2019 to see if these measures need further
\nimprovement and adjustment. The following recommendations are to fill the gaps that
\nwas not covered in the measures introduced and to achieve a better resultant of the
\n\u2018green\u2019 initiatives adopted by Singapore, it is recommended to explore the following
\nfactors in the future:
\n\u2022 In order balance the Singapore\u2019s top bunkering port position, with policy of been
\na responsible flag and coastal state, MPA may like to look at mechanisms to
\nencourage the usage of low-sulphur fuel. Higher incentives in terms of port due
\nreduction may be provided if ships loads and burn the low-sulphur fuel in
\nSingapore port.
\n\u2022 Improve the effectiveness on the effort on reduction of ships emissions, the
\nformation of a regional cooperation mechanism in terms of emissions reduction
\npolicies for GHG to achieve more effective results in improving of air quality in
\nthe region since the countries are closely situated. It can be approached through
\ntripartite agreements with proposal to IMO for adoption.
\n\u2022 With high vessel arrivals, it is difficult for the limited resources of PSC officers
\nto conduct 100 percent checks on the energy efficiency index. Since in the near
\nfuture (ie. when the MARPOL VI amendments is in force) such energy efficiency
\nindex will be used as one of the monitoring tools to determine the incentives for
\n(&
\nthe vessel, with the requirements of certification of the ship\u2019s energy efficiency
\nindex. It is recommended propose new items for PSC MOU, which in this case
\nwould be for Singapore under the Tokyo MOU for regional voluntary checks on
\ncompliance. Such data could be shared among the countries and states.
\n\u2022 In order to have a better monitoring of the energy efficiency level for the
\nSingapore Register Ships and ships participating in the \u2018Green Port Programme\u2019;
\nit is proposed to create an electronic platform for the recognized organization
\n(RO) and the ship owner or operator to submit its energy efficiency index. This
\nelectronic system will enable direct linkage and reporting and analysis of the
\nexisting status of emission level, and also create a baseline for future comparison
\npurposes.
\n(‘
\n7. CONCLUSION
\nUN being the top of the hierarchy at the international level has formed UNEP to govern
\ninternational issues relating to climate change, and IMO which is responsible for
\ngoverning issues relating to international shipping matters in terms of safety and
\nenvironment. Overall we are witnessing the awareness for protection of the global
\nenvironment being raised significantly around the world. Be it at international, regional
\nor national levels, mechanisms, conventions, regulations and voluntary schemes have
\nbeen introduced to reduce air pollution and the emissions of GHG from the shipping
\nsector.
\nThe amendment to MARPOL 73\/78 by introduction of a new annex to address air
\npollution has been a significant effort to reduce ship-based air pollution. This year\u2019s
\nMEPC adoption of EEDI and SEEMP marks another great effort from the maritime
\nindustry to not only look at air pollutants, but also the GHG emissions from ships.
\nRemaining is the deliberation of EEOI and MBMs pending the Assessment of the Expert
\nGroups Assessments on the various proposals submitted. Nevertheless, a common goal on
\nthe usage of the fund is reached (ie. to be collected through the MBMs) to Help the
\ndeveloping countries in technology for reduction of emissions from shipping and
\ntechnical cooperation purposes.
\nEfforts to address ships\u2019 emissions through development of new innovations are also
\nobserved. Be it from modification to ship\u2019s infrastructure and design, to alternative fuels
\nother than fossil fuels such as LNG, hydrogen, and nuclear power have been explored by
\nthe industry at great length. However, in order for ships to be able to make use of these
\ntechnologies, or switching to alternative fuels, additional investments are required from
\nthe shipping companies. Hence, most shipping companies are waiting for the results of
\nthe feasibility study on the \u201csupply and demand of low-sulphur fuels\u201d which will be
\n,P
\ncarried out by IMO in 2018, prior to committing to the next step to their business
\nstrategy. On the contrary, some companies has seen introducing the improved ships
\ndesigns and technologies on their new-build ships as a benefit to the \u201cbranding\u201d for their
\ncompany image, which can act as an enhancement to their business. Other than
\nmodification of ship\u2019s structure and installation of technology, using of low-sulphur fuels
\nsuch as distillates appears to be the most viable option for ships in short term, as it does
\nnot require any form of modification and does not disrupts the company\u2019s business
\nstrategy.
\nSingapore riding on the wave of the \u201cgreen port development\u201d has also introduced
\npolicies to reduce air emissions from ships operating within its port and on Singapore
\nregistered ships. Other than ships, Singapore has also introduced fund to support
\ninnovations from local companies in development of technologies for reduction of air
\nemission from ships. These policies are restricted to only within the port and its flagged
\nships. As recommended in the previous chapter, regional efforts should be studied to curb
\nthe ships\u2019 emissions in the region in order to achieve better environmental results. A
\nbetter enforcement mechanism should be established to keep track of the effects of the
\nmeasures introduced. Being the top bunkering port in the world with a record sales
\nvolumes of US$19 billion in revenue annually, Singapore should also make use of its
\ninfluences to \u2018upgrade\u2019 the bunkering industry to cater for greater demand and supply of
\nlow-sulphur content distillates.
\n,%
\nReferences
\nb=4U8$!Z)P%P>!4\/ELH[$!62DKLC”B:!BF!CH2!J1B0\/1!2:#”EB:@2:C!”@I\/LC!BF!A2\/JB”:J!
\nCE\/:AIBEC\/C”B:!3 dBG!DB2A!”:C2E:\/C”B:\/1!AH”II”:J!LB:CE”0KC2o!M”:J\/IBE2$
\nb4.$!Z:$D$[$!5II2:D”;!-!$!4\/E”:2!TK21A!g!MH”I!Q@”AA”B:!UB:CEB1A!$!EF$+,”-$E&”””()’$
\n2($!”#$+2103 $
\nU\/1″FBE:”\/!UBD2!BF!62JK1\/C”B:A!ZUU6[$!Z:$D$[$!T”:\/1!62JK1\/C”B:!8ED2E$!R1%9$+19*1#$7)0$
\n(2,%#$(-%#72″()79$#%b1″#%&%)2’$*(#$(8%7)Y.(“).$[%”%9’$P”2,”)$679″*(#)”7$P72%#’$7)0$
\n;>$)712″879$&”9%’$(*$2,%$679″*(#)”7$Z7’%9″)% $
\nU\/@I0211>!h$!Z)P%%>!M2IC2@02E!'[$!?2GA$!AI*7&$7)0$ccR$”)$](“)2$-9%7$*(#$7$O1)X%#$
\n9%[3 >!I$!-$
\nU\/E0B:!IBA”C”#2$!Z:$D$[$!67#O()$H(‘”2″[%$4 62CE”2#2D!hK1R!)&>!)P%%>!FEB@!MH”IA!
\n2@”AA”B:A!3 :2GAp!HCCIp\\GGG$L\/E0B:IBA”C”#2$:2C#”2G\/EC”L12$\/AI;o\/EC”L12=Nq)%+’
\nUH\/EC!T2EB;$!Z:$D$[$!6,7#2$R%#(I$!62CE”2#2D!5KJKAC!)>!)P%%>!FEB@!UH\/EC!T2EB;p!
\nHCCIp\\GGG$LH\/EC3F2EB;$LB@
\nU1\/R>!?$!Z)PP’>!?B#2@02E[$!UB@I1″\/:L2!$ 6(&-9″7)8%$X%%-‘$%[%#3()%$,7–3 >!I$!*+$
\nQ\/AB:>!U$!Z)P%%>!5IE”1!%'[$!MH”I!.2LH:B1BJR$!T#%%)$2%8,$#7″‘%’$2,%$O7#$()$’%7$2#”79’ >!I$!
\n‘$
\nQE”O!?RH2″@>!]$!Z)P%P>!hK1R[$!71\/::”:J!FBE!V2EB!2@”AA”B:A$!Zh$!?2GCB:>!=:C2E#”2G2E[!
\n7BECA!g!d\/E0BEA$
\nQKEBI2!Q:#”EB:@2:C!5J2:LR!ZQQ5[$!Z,)P%P[$!_#78X”).$-#(.#%”$2(P7#0’$=3(2($7)0$
\n;W;W$27#.%2’$”)$E1#(-%4 UBI2:H\/J2:p!QQ5$
\nQKEBI2\/:!UB@@K:”C”2A$!Z)PP%>!5KJKAC[$!4\/E”C”@2!M\/F2CR!$!Y ?%’192’$*#(&$2,%$
\n2#7)’-(#2$#%’%7#8,$-#(.#7&&% $!9K;2@0BKEJp!QKEBI2\/:!UB@@K:”C”2A$
\n,)
\nQKEBI2\/:!T2D2E\/C”B:!FBE!.E\/:AIBEC!\/:D!Q:#”EB:@2:C!Z.gQ[$!Z1)X%#$*1%9’$7)0$2,%$
\n=3(2($H#(2(8(94 bEKAA21A>!b21J”K@p!QKEBI2\/:!T2D2E\/C”B:!FBE!.E\/:AIBEC!\/:D!
\nQ:#”EB:@2:C!$
\nQKEBI2\/:!`:”B:$!Z)PP->!hK1R!([$!N”E2LC”#2!)PP-**QU!BF!CH2!QKEBI2\/:!7\/E1″@2:C!
\n\/:D!BF!CH2!UBK:L”1$!V”#%82″[%$;WW5dJJdE6 $
\nT\/”EI1\/R!$!Z)P%%>!4\/R[$!T\/”EI1\/R!MB1KC”B:A!3 =AAK2!%,-$!R7″#-973$+(912″()’ $
\nXB1DAGBECHR>!9$!Q;H\/KAC!Q@”AA”B:A!FEB@!MH”I!Q:J”:2A!3 M”J:”F”L\/:L2>!62JK1\/C”B:A>!
\nUB:CEB1!.2LH:B1BJ”2A$!=:!5$!4$!9h>!EI,71’2$E&”””()’$*#(&$+,”-$E).”)%’4
\nXE22:7BEC$!Z:$D$[$!T#%%)H(#24 62CE”2#2D!5KJKAC!)>!)P%%>!FEB@!XE22:7BEC!3 UH\/EJ2!
\n?8r!2@”AA”B:A!FEB@!AH”IAp!HCCIp\\GGG$JE22:IBEC$LB@F2\/CKE2A%P%CKJA>3CBG”:J>3
\nIB11KC”B:3\/:D3A\/1#\/J2A\/F2CRLH\/EJ23:B;32@”AA”B:A3FEB@3AH”IA
\n=U58$!Z)P%P[$!\/6!A$E)[“#()&%)279$?%-(#2$;We$E8()(&”8$\/)’2#1&%)2’4
\n=U58$
\n=48$!Z)PP&>!8LCB02E!%P[$!5@2:D@2:CA!CB!CH2!5::2;!BF!CH2!7EBCBLB1!BF!%”,!CB!
\n\/@2:D!CH2!=:C2E:\/C”B:\/1!UB:#2:C”B:!FBE!CH2!7E2#2:C”B:!BF!7B11KC”B:!FEB@!
\nMH”IA>%’,*>!\/A!@BD”F”2D!0R!CH2!7EBCBLB1!BF!%’,&!E21\/C”:J!CH2E2CB!ZE2#”A2D!456789!
\n5::2;!<=[$!!))%I$!5KJKAC!%,[$!XK”D21″:2A!FBE! $!=48$
\n=48$!Z)PP+>!54ELH!+[$!=48!7B1″L”2A!\/:D!7E\/LC”L2A!E2\/1C2D!CB!CH2!E2DKLC”B:!BF!
\nXE22:HBKA2!X\/A!Q@”AA”B:A!FEB@!MH”IA$!?%'(912″()$!4SLJC;JD $!=48$
\n=48$!Z)PP’>!hK1R!%*3%'[$!@7#”)%$E)[“#()&%)2$H#(2%82″()$6(&&”22%%$C@EH6D$5S2,$
\n‘%””()$4 62CE”2#2D!5KJKAC!)>!)P%%>!FEB@!MH”I!XdX!2@”AA”B:A!H”JH!B:!\/J2:D\/!\/C!=48!
\n2:#”EB:@2:C!@22C”:Jp!
\nHCCIp\\GGG-$”@B$BEJMH\/E27B”:C@\/”:FE\/@2$\/AIoCBI”Ls”Dq%,,*gDBLs”Dq%%-)-
\n=48$!Z:$D$[$!4\/EO2C3b\/A2D!42\/AKE2A!7EBIBA\/1A!K:D2E!LB:A”D2E\/C”B:!G”CH”:!CH2!
\nQ;I2EC!XEBKI!B:!T2\/A”0″1″CR!MCKDR!\/:D!=@I\/LC!5AA2AA@2:C!BF!7BAA”012!4\/EO2C!b\/A2D!
\n42\/AKE2A$!=48$
\n=48$!Z)P%%>!4\/R[$!@EH6$L;)0$’%””()$0(81&%)24
\n,*
\n=48$!Z:$D$[$!H#%[%)2″()$(*$!”#$H(9912″()$*#(&$+,”-‘4 62CE”2#2D!5KJKAC!*P>!)P%%>!FEB@!
\n=48p!HCCIp\\GGG-$”@B$BEJMH\/E27B”:C@\/”:FE\/@2$\/AIoCBI”Ls”Dq)**
\n=48$!Z)PP’>!hK1R!)&[$!62IBEC!BF!CH2!4\/E”:2!Q:#”EB:@2:C!7EBC2LC”B:!UB@@”CC22!B:!”CA!
\nT”FCR3:”:CH!M2AA”B:$!@EH6$5Sd;>d!004< $
\n=:C2EJB#2E:@2:C\/1!7\/:21!B:!U1″@\/C2!UH\/:J2!Z=7UU[$!Z)PP%[$!+1&&7#3$*(#$
\nH(9″83&7X%#’$Y 69″&72%$8,7).%$;W<!h\/:K\/ER!)'[$!
\n7E2#2:C”B:!BF!\/”E!IB11KC”B:!FEB@!AH”IA!3 5!E20\/C2!@2LH\/:”A@!FBE!\/!@\/EO2C30\/A2D!
\n“:ACEK@2:C!FBE!”:C2E:\/C”B:\/1!AH”II”:J$!@7#”)%$E)[“(#)&%)2$H#(2%82″()$6(&&”22%%$
\neLW2,$’%””()$e$!.%)07$”2%&$> $!9B:DB:>!`Wp!=48$
\n=7=QU5!\/:D!8U=4T$!Z)PP,[$!@7#”2″&%$7″#$%&”””()’$7)0$@!?HAQ$!))%I$f\/$Y +2#72%.”%’$
\n7)0$8()’%b1%)8%’4 =7=QU5$
\n91BRDSA!9″AC$!Z)P%%>!5IE”1!%'[$!MLEK002E!KA2!CB!E”A2!\/A!BG:2EA!F\/L2!1BG3AK1IHKE!FK21!
\nAHBEC\/J2$!I$!-$
\n9BLO>!8$!b$!Z)PP’>!4\/R[$!4\/”:C\/”:”:J!CH2!JE22:!@B@2:CK@$!Z7$!g$!d\/E0BEA>!
\n=:C2E#”2G2E[!7BECA!g!d\/E0BEA$
\n4\/>!M$!_,%$U7)0O((X$(*$@7#”2″&%$E8()(&”8’$7)0$Z1′”)%” Z)PP)!2D$[$!ZU$!.$!
\nXE\/@@2:BA>!QD$[!997$
\n4\/2EAO!9″:2$!Z)P%P[$!+1’27”)7O”9″23$H#(.#%”$?%-(#2$;W!QU8?>!U\/E:2J”2!4211B:!g!N?<$!Z)PPP[$!+2103$(*$T#%%),(1’%$T7’$
\nE&”””()’$*#(&$’,”-‘4 .EB:DH2″@>!?BEG\/Rp!?BEG2J”\/:!4\/E”:2!.2LH:B1BJR!62A2\/ELH!
\n=:AC”CKC2!3 456=?.QW$
\n4b43QX$!Z)P%P[$!]BEO!K:D2EC\/O2:!0R!CH2!4b43QX$
\n?BEG2J”\/:!4\/E”:2!.2LH:B1BJR!62A2\/ELH!=:AC”CKC2!3 456=?.QW$!Z4\/ELH!)PPP[$!+2103$
\n(*$T#%%),(1’%$T7’$E&”””()’$*#(&$+,”-‘$Y R”)79$?%-(#2$(2$2,%$\/)2%#)72″()79$@7#”2″&%$
\n,+
\nA#.7)”B72″()4 ?BEG2J”\/:!4\/E”:2!.2LH:B1BJR!62A2\/ELH!=:AC”CKC2$!.EB:DH2″@p!
\n456=?.QW$
\n7BECA!g!d\/E0BEA$!Z)PP&>!4\/R[$!T2\/CKE2!3 51C2E:\/C”#2!4\/E”C”@2!7BG2E$!Z#%72,”).$&(#%$
\n%7′”93 $
\n7BECA!g!d\/E0BEA$!Z)PP’!>!4\/ELH[$!XE22:!7BEC!Q_K”I@2:C$!+&799$P73’$2($.($.#%%) $
\n7BECA!g!d\/E0BEA$!Z)PP’>!M2IC2@02E[$!d\/:DA!KI!FBE!L1″@\/C2!LH\/:J2$!6([%#$+2(#3 >!I$!
\n*($
\n7BECA!g!d\/E0BEA$!Z)P%P>!hK1R[$!4\/E”C”@2!`ID\/C2$!69%7)%#$’,”-‘$7,%70 >!I$!*($
\n7BECA!g!d\/E0BEA$!Z)PP’>!4\/R>!?B#2@02E>![$!?Q]M$!H(#2$F-072%’ >!I$!’$
\nMH21CB:>!5$!W$!\/)2%#)72″()79$E)[#”()&%)279$Q7P$Z.H”ED!QD”C”B:!2D$[$!.E\/:A:\/C”B:\/1!
\n7K01″AH2EA>!=:L$
\nMK0A”D”\/ER!0BDR!FBE!AL”2:C”F”L!\/:D!C2LH:B1BJR!\/D#”L2!Z`?TUUU[$!Z)P%P[$!\/)*(#&72″()$
\n#%9%[7)2$2($%&”””()’$*#(&$*1%9$1’%0$*(#$”)2%)#72″()79$7[“72″()$7)0$&7#”2″&%$2#7)’-(#24
\nbB::p!`?TUUU$
\nMG2D”AH!4\/E”C”@2!5D@”:”ACE\/C”B:$!Z)PP'[$!6()’%b1%)8%’$(*$\/@Ag’$K%P$@7#”)%$R1%9$
\n+19-,1# ?%.1972″()’4 ?BEEOBI”:Jp!MG2D”AH!4\/E”C”@2!5D@”:”ACE\/C”B:$
\n`?Q7$!69″&72%$6,7).%4 7\/E”Ap!`?Q7$
\n`?Q7$!Z)PPP[$!_,%$@()2#%79$H#(2(8(9$()$+1O’27)8%’$2,72$V%-9%2%$2,%$AB()%$Q73%#4
\n?\/”EB0″p!M2LE2C\/E”\/C!FBE!.H2!<“2::\/!UB:#2:C”B:!FBE!CH2!7EBC2LC”B:!BF!CH2!8VB:2!9\/R2E!
\ng!.H2!4B:CE2\/1!7EBCBLB1!B:!MK0AC\/:L2A!CH\/C!N2I12C2!CH2!8VB:2!9\/R2E$
\n`:”C2D!?\/C”B:A!TE\/@2GBEO!UB:#2:C”B:!B:!U1″@\/C2!UH\/:J2!Z`?TUUU[$!Z)P%%>!hK1R!
\n)'[$!FKR666$!62CE”2#2D!hK1R!)’>!)P%%>!FEB@!`?TUUUp!HCCIp\\K:FLLL$”:C
\n]”::2A>!d$!Z)P%P[$!!”#$H(9912″()$*#(& +,”-‘$Y E&”””()$@%7’1#%&%)2’$7)0$\/&-782$
\n!”%”&%)2’4 XBC2:0KEJp!UH\/1@2EA$
\n,-
\nAppendix 1 \u2013 Representative health and environmental effects of air
\npollutants
\nTable 8 – Representative health effects of air pollutants.
\nAir Pollutants Possible Health Effects
\nOzone Lung functional impairment, increased airway
\nresponsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory
\ninfection, increased pulmonary inflammation, lung structure
\ndamage.
\nCarbon Monoxide (CO) Cardiovascular effects, especially in those persons with heart
\nconditions.
\nNitrogen Oxides (NOx) Lung irritation and low resistance to respiratory infections.
\nParticulate Matter (PM) Premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and
\ncardiovascular disease, changes in lung function and
\nincreased respiratory symptoms, changes to lung tissues and
\nstructure, and altered respiratory defense mechanisms.
\nVolatile Organic Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness,
\nvisual disorders, and memory impairment.
\nSource: https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/californiaskywatch.com\/
\nTable 9 – Representative environmental effects of air pollutants.
\nAir Pollutants Possible Environmental Effects
\nOzone Damage and reduction in resistance to diseases to crop and
\nagriculture.
\nCarbon Monoxide (CO) Similar health effects on animals as in human.
\nNitrogen Oxides (NOx) Acid rain, visibility degradation, particle formation,
\ncontribution towards ozone formation.
\nParticulate Matter (PM) Visibility degradation and monument and building soiling.
\nVolatile Organic Contribution towards ozone formation, odours and some
\ndirect effects on buildings and plants.
\nSource: https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/californiaskywatch.com\/
\n,(
\nAppendix 2 \u2013 EU progress towards Kyoto targets in 2008
\nFigure 24 – EU current progress towards Kyoto targets in 2008.
\nSource: EEA, Report in tracking of progress towards Kyoto targets and 2020 targets in Europe, 2010.
\n“”
\nAppendix 3 \u2013 Overview of existing and developing regulations
\nTable 10 – Overview of existing regulations implemented, or going to be implemented for reduction ship emissions.
\nIMO Regulations EU Regulations California (US)
\nRegulations
\nCanada Regulations
\nTimeline
\nRestriction
\nStatus
\nCoverage\/
\nTimeline
\nRestriction
\nStatus
\nCoverage\/
\nTimeline
\nRestriction
\nStatus
\nCoverage\/
\nTimeline
\nRestriction
\nStatus
\nCoverage\/
\nTechnical Requirements Technical Restrictions Technical Restrictions 1 Jan 2000
\nEngines built
\nfrom Jan
\n2000 to
\ncomply with
\nNOx
\nTechnical
\nCode
\nGlobal\/
\nIn force
\n16 Aug 2006
\nNo sale of
\n>1.5% SOx
\nMDO
\nEU
\nports\/
\nIn force
\n1 Oct 2007
\nNo sale of
\n>0.05%
\nSOx
\nMDO
\nIn
\nforce
\n“#
\nIMO Regulations EU Regulations California (US)
\nRegulations
\nCanada Regulations
\n13 Apr 2008
\nInternational
\nAir Pollution
\nPrevention
\nCertificate
\nGlobal\/
\nIn force
\n1 Jan 2010
\nNo sale of
\n>0.1% SOx
\nMGO
\nEU
\nports\/
\nIn force
\n1 Jun 2012
\nNo sale of
\n>0.0015%
\nSOx
\nMDO
\nIn
\nforce
\nRestrictions on SOx contents
\n(Global)
\nRestrictions on SOx contents
\n(EU Ports)
\nRestrictions on SOx
\ncontents
\n(California waters
\nextending upto 24 NM
\nfrom baseline)
\nRestrictions on emission
\nof black smoke
\n(Canada waters amd
\nwithin 1NM of land)
\n19 May 2005
\nMax. 4.5%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\nIn force
\nJul 2000
\nMax. 0.2%
\nm\/m SOx of
\nMGO
\nIn force
\n1 Jan 2007
\nMax. 1.0%
\nSOx in
\nMGO &
\n0.5% in
\nMDO
\nIn
\nforce
\n2007
\nSubject to
\ndensity
\nlevel
\ndetermine
\non Smoke
\nChart
\nIn
\nforce
\n“$
\nIMO Regulations EU Regulations California (US)
\nRegulations
\nCanada Regulations
\n1 Jan 2012
\nMax. 3.5%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\nDue for
\nenforcem
\nent
\n11 Aug 2006
\nMax. 1.5%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\n(Scheduled
\npassenger
\nships
\ncarrying
\nmore than
\n12)
\nIn force
\nJan 2012
\nMax. 0.1%
\nSOx in
\nMGO &
\nMDO
\nIn
\nforce
\n1 Jan 2020
\nMax. 0.5%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\nUnder
\ndebate
\n1 Jan 2008
\nMax. 0.1%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nMGO
\nIn force
\n1 Jan 2010
\nMax. 0.1%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\nAt berths
\nand
\ninland
\nwaterwa
\nys \/
\n#%
\nIMO Regulations EU Regulations California (US)
\nRegulations
\nCanada Regulations
\nIn force
\nRestrictions on SOx contents
\n(SECA\/ ECA)
\nRestrictions on SOx contents
\n(SECA)
\n19 May 2006
\nMax. 1.5%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\nBaltic
\nSea\/
\nIn force
\n11 Aug 2006
\nMax. 1.5%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\nBaltic
\nSea \/
\nIn force
\n22 Nov 2007
\nMax. 1.5%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\nNorth
\nSea\/
\nIn force
\n11 Aug 2007
\nMax. 1.5%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\nNorth
\nSea \/
\nIn force
\n#&
\nIMO Regulations EU Regulations California (US)
\nRegulations
\nCanada Regulations
\n1 Mar 2010
\nMax. 1.0%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\nBaltic &
\nNorth
\nSeas\/ Due
\nto for
\nenforceme
\nnt
\n1 Jan 2015
\nMax. 0.1%
\nm\/m SOx on
\nbunker fuel
\nBaltic &
\nNorth
\nSeas\/ Due
\nto for
\nenforceme
\nnt
\nSource: Summarized by author, master\u2019s dissertation, World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.<\/w4><\/n$@\"2\".72\"()4><\/b1k:><\/j$y><\/wy><\/i#@)*%1#><\/wo)$-%#$><\/sa!^k><\/a8=ab!ma><\/g><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

AIR EMISSIONS: THE EFFECTS ON THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY AND PORTS Implications for the Port of Singapore ABSTRACTS Title of Dissertation: Air Emissions: The Effects on\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8827,10099,10540,10536,10892,10538,10539,10537,10891],"tags":[10549,10616,10615,7687,10627,8857,10552,10295,10548,10622,8907],"class_list":["post-132540","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-essays","category-buy-essay","category-cheap-essay-writers","category-get-assignments-done","category-page-paper","category-phd-essay-writers","category-research-paper-writing-service-for-any-topic","category-study-bay-essay","category-write-my-assignment-ireland","tag-ai-plagiarism-free-essay-writing-tool","tag-australian-best-tutors","tag-best-trans-tutors","tag-buy-essay-uk","tag-cheap-dissertation-writer","tag-help-with-writing-an-essay","tag-help-write-my-paper-ai-free","tag-homework-for-you","tag-online-essay-writers","tag-phd-essays","tag-write-my-essay-for-me"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132540","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132540"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132540\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132540"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132540"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132540"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}