Control of Emissions from Ships: Analysis and Enforcement of the Revised Marpol Annex Vi

CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS: ANALYSIS AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEX VI

Implementation of requirements of firsteditionМARPOL 73/78 Annex VI in Lithuania

For Lithuania, Annex VI to МARPOL 73/78 International Convention entered into force on 13 December, 2005. In compliance with current rules regulating the permissible sulphur content of marine fuel oils, the prescribed sulphur limit for the areas not defined as SOx emission control areas (SECA) is 4,5%. In the areas, highly sensitive to sulphur content and having special (SECA) status, sulphur content in fuel shall not exceed 1,5%.

Limitationsoffuel‘ssulphur content in SECA areas after the entryinto force of Annex VI were applied only to vessels which used heavy fuel oil (HFO), due to the fact sulphur content in such fuel oil in the area of the Baltic Sea mostly amounted from 1,9 to 2,2% on average. Average sulphur content of fuel used by Lithuaninan ships amounted from 2,2 to2,7%. Ships the engines of which operated on light fuel (MGO, MDO) had no problems with sulphur emissions. Use of low-sulphur content fuel (LSFO) instead of high-sulphur content fuel (HSFO) for engines of vesselsoriginated some related problems, which were successfully solved by Lithuanian shipowners.

Increase of fuel’sprices. It influences the efficiency of ships in service and the competition ability at freight market;

Investments in applicability of fuel system to work in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 14. When a ship is operating within SECA area and outside, ship's fuel oil system shall be modified for HSFO and LSFO to be completely segregated; and when a ship enters SECA area, the absence of sulphur fuel residues in fuel oil supply system shall be guaranteed.

Efforts to safeguard the resources of engines. Due to LSFO lowerlubricating property, the means to improve lubricating property shall be applied;

Limitations related to bunkering of vessels.

- limited market of low-sulphur fuel in Europe and Lithuania;

- with increasing the demand for LSFO, its market price increases, too;

- high investments in additional production facilities;

- the Baltic Sea is not an independent fuel market sector;

It should be noted that Regulation 14 of Annex VI concedes the alternative ways for reducing sulphur oxides based on reduction of SOx emissions by the use of cleaning technologies for the end products of sulphur fuel combustion. Alternatively, in case the specific SOx emission does not exceed 6 g/kWh, no limitations for sulphur content in fuel are applied. Although technologies for cleaning exhaust gas from sulphur oxides are considered to be problematic at present and were not used in Lithuania.

The revision of МARPOL 73/78 Annex VI

New revision of МARPOL 73/78 Annex VI will enter into force in July 2010. Basic alterations in new revision are related to requirements strengthening for sulphur content in SOx emissions and editing of the NOx Technical Code. As specified, since 1 January 2012 sulphur content in marine fuel would be limited to 3,50%. Since 1 January 2020, it is scheduled to decrease the limit to 0,50%. Also, the new limitations for sulphur content in marine fuel in SECA areas within up to 1% are provided for the near future: from 1 March 2010 the value is scheduled to be reduced to 1% and from 1 January 2015 - to 0,10%. At the moment, only two SECA areas are defined: the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. Whereas heavy fuel oil is permitted, when the applicable sulphur content standards are met, the new requirements shall establish an increasing demand for distilled marine fuel. Alternative measures for reducing sulphur emissionare also permitted (in SECA areas and worldwide), i.e. use of scrubbers, for instance.

Quite a number of alterations are related to NOx emissions. Provision is made for strengthening ofrequirements for NOx emission from marine engines. Also, since 1 January 2010 it will be prohibited to use Freon22 in the maintenance of refrigerating and air-conditioning equipment onboard all ships due to the fact that, as is proved by research, it presents a severe hazard for environment. Although, Freon22 may be used as an exception, when it is specially regenerated. However, it is possible, in theory only, because a regeneration procedure requires many investments, thus it is more reasonable and simple to start using Freon404.

The most urgent question which arises with regard to all the above stated future changes is what problems will face the shipowners and/or bunkering companies? Clearly, the most topical problems which shall be faced are increasing financial expenses due to the fulfilment of new requirements for sulphur content. It stands to reason that fuel with low sulphur content will be much more expensive. One of the suggested technical ways to reduce expences shall consume less fuel: to move at lower speed, where possible. However, speaking not only about shipping and bunkering companies, but Lithiania in general, the main problem is the use of fuel oil during the ship stay in port. Since the Lithuanian shipowners are preparimg to implement the new revision of Annex VI, attemps were made to plugships to the ashore electricity. However, this method did not perfectly prove its value because the existing capacity of electric power supply is sufficient only for few ships and an additional transformer station is necessary. Without the transformer, the capacity is sufficient for three ships at most, and again everything depends on expenses. A proposal to use diesel oil is also financially unprofitable because diesel oil is more expensive than heavy fuel oil due to low sulphur content, and this method was abandoned. It is interesting to note that no accurate analysis was made when the ship is in port. However, it is theorized that it is cheaper to use electricity. Many shipping companies have already started to implement various programs on fuel economy. One of such methods being tested already is the use of silicon paint. The peculiarity of such paint consists in applying a layer of special silicone paint to ship's hull, along which water slides during the ship voayge. Thus, the ship speed increases and, owing to such coating, water is not able to slow down the moving ship. It means that silicone paint helps to save a big quantityof fuel for the ship. This method is quite expensive – to cover the hull of one ship (for example, "Lisco Optima" - gross tonnage 25206 t) by silicone paint costs about 0,3 million Euro. Besides the advantages, this method has a number of drawbacks. One of the most important things is that the ship shall be continuously kept in working condition. Otherwise, slimes or wracks will grow on the bottom of ship very quickly. One more thing: when the ship is on dock, the hull shall be in the sun as little as possible, because sunbeams stimulate the growth of slimes or wracks on the hull as well. As the need arises to cover the ship's hull by new silicone tissue, it is necessary to remove away the old paint tissue; because otherwise this new tissue will not be heldon ship's hull. Scraping of old paint layer is a hard work which takes a lot of time. Calculations revealed that, notwithstanding to all aforementioned drawbacks, this method fully pays for itself. It means that fuel saved for the particular time justifies the committed investments and all the aforementioned drawbacks.

Conclusion

It is quite evident that striving for more qualitative air is a goal which unites us, a goal we are moving to and one we shall strain after to minimize harmful effect of emissions to atmosphere. Since all taken measures were prepared using demand analysis method which is substantiated by publicly available and famous scientific principles, the new revision of Annex VI to МARPOL 73/78undoubtedly will have positive influence on atmosphere and health of people, especially those living on coasts of port towns and in coastal states.