Mon 8 Aug 2016 12:42

'Extreme difficulty' for refiners to meet 2020 sulphur cap demand, says study


Report's findings contrast sharply with those of an IMO-commissioned study.



An independent study carried out by EnSys Energy & Systems Inc. and Navigistics Consulting and submitted to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) says oil refiners will have "extreme difficulty" in meeting demand for low-sulphur marine fuel if a global sulphur cap of 0.5 percent is imposed in 2020, IHS Fairplay reports.

The study's conclusions contrast sharply with those of a separate CE Delft-led study commissioned by the IMO, which said that there could be sufficient refining capacity to meet demand for low-sulphur compliant bunkers by 2020.

Both studies have been submitted ahead of the 70th session of the IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC 70), which is due to take place between 24th and 28th October in London to potentially decide whether to implement a global 0.5 percent limit in January 2020, or to delay until 2025.

The EnSys study was carried out despite the firm not winning the bid for the IMO study. Instead, the Massachusetts company conducted research as part of its regular consulting business and was supported by sponsors including oil and gas industry association IPIECA, and shipowner association BIMCO, who in turn submitted the report to IMO.

The new report's findings "point to extreme difficulty - and indeed potential infeasibility - for the refining sector to supply the needed fuel under the global sulphur cap and to simultaneously meet all other demand without surpluses or deficits".

The study adds: "Market impacts are projected as very substantial across all products and regions worldwide, not just marine fuels, and, consequently, to have potentially significant impacts across economies and sectors.

"The global refining industry is unlikely to be able to meet the needed extra sulphur removal demand because 2020 sulphur plant (and hydrogen plant) capacity will not be adequate based on current capacity plus projects."

In CE Delft's earlier IMO-commissioned study, it stated: "The refinery industry can produce sufficient amounts of marine fuels of the required quality in the base case, the high case, and the low case while at the same time supplying other sectors with the petroleum products they require."

In the report, CE Delft also assumes that refineries around the world will have enough capacity to supply compliant fuel.

"We have assumed that all units have sufficient sulphur plant capacity. If this assumption is not accurate, refineries will need to expand the capacity of their sulphur plants to fulfil 2020 demand," the study says.

Maritime consultancy 20|20 Marine Energy stated in May that fears of a distillate shortage 'could be misguided'. The company pointed out that diesel use within the automotive and land-based industries may be in decline, which would free up surplus product that could be directed to shipping; it added that refiners will look to create a market for HFO - a refinery by-product which can only realistically be used within shipping.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that shipping will account for 9 percent of global distillate demand by 2020, up from 3 percent in 2015. It says a 2020 implementation date for the 0.5 percent sulphur cap would see 2 million barrels per day (b/d) of marine fuel demand switch from heavy fuel oil (HFO) to marine gas oil (MGO), leading to a 2 million-b/d jump in global distillate demand to 30 million b/d. By comparison, the change in the ECA sulphur cap from 1 percent to 0.1 percent in 2015 led to a 0.1 million b/d switch from HFO to MGO, the IEA says.

Meanwhile, the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), using combined data from BP, Marine and Energy Consulting, IEA and OPEC, has said that a switch from HFO to distillates and/or desulphurised HFOs in 2020 would see demand for these products jump 3 million b/d or more, compared to a rise of 0.5 million b/d when the ECA regulations were implemented in 2015.

Chart showing percentage of off-spec and on-spec samples by fuel type, according to VPS. Is your vessel fully protected from the dangers of poor-quality fuel? | Steve Bee, VPS  

Commercial Director highlights issues linked to purchasing fuel and testing quality against old marine fuel standards.

Ships at the Tecon container terminal at the Port of Suape, Brazil. GDE Marine targets Suape LSMGO by year-end  

Expansion plan revealed following '100% incident-free' first month of VLSFO deliveries.

Hercules Tanker Management and Hyundai Mipo Dockyard sign bunker vessel agreement Peninsula CEO seals deal to build LNG bunker vessel  

Agreement signed through shipping company Hercules Tanker Management.

Illustration of Kotug tugboat and the logos of Auramarine and Sanmar Shipyards. Auramarine supply system chosen for landmark methanol-fuelled tugs  

Vessels to enter into service in mid-2025.

A Maersk vessel, pictured from above. Rise in bunker costs hurts Maersk profit  

Shipper blames reroutings via Cape of Good Hope and fuel price increase.

Claus Bulch Klausen, CEO of Dan-Bunkering. Dan-Bunkering posts profit rise in 2023-24  

EBT climbs to $46.8m, whilst revenue dips from previous year's all-time high.

Chart showing percentage of fuel samples by ISO 8217 version, according to VPS. ISO 8217:2024 'a major step forward' | Steve Bee, VPS  

Revision of international marine fuel standard has addressed a number of the requirements associated with newer fuels, says Group Commercial Director.

Carsten Ladekjær, CEO of Glander International Bunkering. EBT down 45.8% for Glander International Bunkering  

CFO lauds 'resilience' as firm highlights decarbonization achievements over past year.

Anders Grønborg, CEO of KPI OceanConnect. KPI OceanConnect posts 59% drop in pre-tax profit  

Diminished earnings and revenue as sales volume rises by 1m tonnes.

Verde Marine Homepage Delta Energy's ARA team shifts to newly launched Verde Marine  

Physical supplier offering delivery of marine gasoil in the ARA region.


↑  Back to Top