---

Interferry’s 36th annual conference in Barcelona on October 3-6 underlined that there are few straightforward solutions to the operational and regulatory challenges facing the ferry industry. A near-record 280 delegates from 33 countries debated issues ranging from choice of fuel and emissions control to safety and insurance – and were frequently left to weigh up contrasting advice from a cast of more than 40 speakers.

“The conference confirmed that very little is in black or white when searching for relief from the ferry sector’s mounting economic and political pressures,” said Interferry CEO Len Roueche. “Fuel costs are frightening and regulations to slash shipping emissions, although well-intentioned, are potentially catastrophic in both commercial and environmental terms. Assessing the complex array of operational and technical options often raises more questions than answers on the best way forward.”

The keenest debate came in sessions covering LNG-fuelled ferries, sulphur-reduction scrubbing technology and the impact of EU anti-pollution measures – which provided an early shop window for Interferry’s new full-time regulatory specialist. However, there was wide acclaim for the announcement that a long-planned regional safety forum is to go ahead in Indonesia in December under the joint IMO/Interferry initiative to reduce ferry fatalities in developing nations.

The perceived divide between political will and commercial realism came into sharp focus when a regulator and a ship-owners’ representative debated EU regulatory issues.

Jesus Bonet Company, head of maritime safety and environment at the European Commission, denied that the EU was intent on deviating from IMO environmental targets. Commenting on the move to 0.1 percent fuel sulphur content in Emission Control Areas (ECAs) by 2015, he declared: “We support the IMO because they are right – sulphur gas is bad for citizens’ health. We know this is going to be a challenge for the sector but there are ways.”

Turning to greenhouse gas, he added: “It’s not the regulator’s job to substitute the judgement of scientists. Our White Paper on transport aims to cut shipping emissions by 40 percent by 2050 because the evidence says CO2 is ruining the planet and will have a disastrous effect on our children.” Likewise he said the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) – though not yet adopted for ferries – was “a great step ahead”.

He admitted that progress was slow on the many proposals for controlling emissions through Market Based Measures (MBM) but said an impact assessment would be finalised in the second quarter of 2012. “This is not about drawing money from the sector,” he stressed. “We are trying to use the market as an optimiser of the system and strongly support a global solution. But we have said many times that, if this is not achieved, we will come up with a way to meet our targets that can be integrated with and strengthen the international process.”

Alfons Guinier, secretary general of the European Community Ship-owners’ Associations (ECSA), insisted that a regional approach to MBM must be avoided, warning: “Shipping may become the milk cow for funding. The fair way is a compensation-based levy but it has to be a global solution that can be applied to all flags.”

On sulphur content restrictions in European ECAs, he complained that no impact assessment had been carried out on the threat of a modal shift from sea to road. “This could be anything up to 50 percent depending on the type of goods,” he warned, “but even at 10-20 percent there will be a snowball effect resulting in a vicious cycle of fewer services, lower frequency, less capacity and greater cost.”

Use of LNG was overshadowed by lack of bunkering facilities and “non-existent” safety rules regarding filling when passengers were on board. “These tools will not be ready by 2015 and we need to get an extension,” warned Guinier.

Former Stena group director of sustainability Johan Roos, who became Interferry’s executive director of EU and IMO affairs in September, recalled raising objections to the sulphur content proposals at the IMO in 2008: “I felt very small with 168 governments thinking I wanted to kill every child, lake and flower in northern Europe. But where were the impact assessments? Only ECSA looked at the cost of putting freight back on the roads.

“Will we win a delay? I don’t know, but the most positive thing about our campaigning is general awareness of what short-sea shipping is about and a realisation that the one size fits all mentality is not always prudent. Our efforts have rubbed off in that, if we had not had this big fight on sulphur, I think we would have been dragged into EEDI, where we have now won a two-year extension to find a workable formula that does not penalise the special requirements of ferries. Regulators are very willing to listen but they need facts and figures, not sentiment, which is something our industry needs to work harder on. Lack of knowledge is the real enemy, not the ambitions of regulators.”

EEDI

Roy Beswick, fleet director of Morocco’s Comarit, said that operators felt threatened by the wave of regulatory proposals. “I’m not against regulations on green and sustainable ships but we need to go at a more reasonable pace,” he argued. “The EEDI definition is a typesetter’s nightmare – it has to be one of the most complex formulas ever seriously proposed to be a part of legislation.”

Deltamarin concept design manager Esa Jokioinen reported on work to find a ferry-friendly EEDI formula within two years of it becoming mandatory for other vessels in January 2013. Studies for the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) had shown that the current formula produced up to 300 percent scatter in ferry index values depending on their speed and capacity.

“The EEDI represents a power limit which is in effect a speed limit,” he explained. “It might be OK for some ships to reduce engine power and slow down, but how would this work for ferries taking into account schedules, redundancy and safety margins?”

According to Jokioinen, ferries need a formula that recognised their speed dependency and defined capacity on measures like deadweight tonnage and lane metres rather than the “possibly misleading” gross tonnage calculation. EMSA is to host a workshop on the proposals in December.

Fuel efficiency

Measures to counter rocketing oil prices were described by Carlos Alvarez-Cascos, head of business development, research and innovation at Spanish operator Acciona Trasmediterannea, who said that fuel costs now absorbed 27 percent of company revenues compared with 17 percent in 2005.

Latest generation silicone hull coatings on three ships had produced fuel savings of 5-12 percent. The coatings would now be applied to all ships with the aim of a 10 percent saving across the fleet. A slow steaming exercise was investigating the cost differential between operating a daily service with one ship taking six hours at 22 knots or two ships taking 12 hours at half speed. The company was also observing EU solar/sail power trials suggesting a possible 11 knots under sail alone.

Incat chairman Robert Clifford argued that the High Speed Code hampers fuel efficiency by stipulating a minimum speed at full load. “The formula says that a 150-metre ship must be capable of 40 knots,” he explained. “The customer might be happy with 25 knots but we can’t do that under the code without building in excessive power. It’s nonsense and we need to do something about it.”

LNG ferries

Delegates heard that interest in LNG as an alternative fuel is being driven by oil prices and environmental regulations, but potential users were uneasy about availability and storage and also wanted more clarification on rules. DNV specialist Torill Grimstad Osberg argued that switching to natural gas was a good solution for compliance in ECAs since LNG was sulphur-free, reduced NOx by up to 90 percent and cut CO2 by up to 20 percent. Twenty LNG-fuelled ships were already in operation and many more were in the pipeline, including an Incat fast ferry for the Buquebus service between Argentina and Uruguay.

On the rules issue, she pointed out that DNV rules covered all design safety aspects and were echoed in international guidelines that are now being developed into an international code. Fire and explosion risks due to gas escapes or mechanical impact could be solved by ventilation and protection barrier systems. On the question of whether it was possible to locate tanks below deck and below accommodation, she stressed: “This is entirely possible with the above safeguards.”

Ingvald Fardal, president and CEO of Norway’s Fjord Line, said his company is planning a dual fuel LNG upgrade within a year of two newbuilds being delivered in late 2012. “Where we operate is the strictest control area in the world and it’s going to get even tighter,” he explained. “We know that switching from HFO to distillate is going to cost a lot of money and we are not attracted to the scrubber option, so LNG seems a very good alternative. But where can you fill your ship? There aren’t many facilities in Europe today. And can you fill with passengers on board? This is a crucial consideration and we need confirmation of indications that we will get approval.”

Raimon Strunck, VP sales at Germany’s Flensburger yard, presented a drive-on tanker trailer solution to meet widespread concerns over lack of LNG bunkering infrastructure and space-consuming onboard storage. Together with gas-handling specialist TGE and engine manufacturer MAN, the yard has developed a ro-pax design featuring purpose-designed cassette trailers that connect to the fuel system through a special locking device. Strunck suggested a net present value benefit of €10 million over five years compared with the marine gas oil option and added: “The concept is contract-ready although I can’t disclose details yet.”

Fuel choice and dealing with sulphur

Per Stefenson, marine standards advisor and R&D manager at Sweden’s Stena group, highlighted another concern over LNG – that the risk of methane slip could have consequences 20 times worse than CO2 – and suggested that methanol could be the fuel of the future. He described a retrofit project with Danish company Haldor Topsoe in which methanol is reformed onboard to user-friendly Di-Methyl-Ether, explaining: “It’s perfect for the diesel process, meets ECA requirements and is also an economic winner since methanol and LNG are about the same price alongside ship.”

Wärtsilä director of concept design Oskar Levander painted a future with “a much more diverse palette of fuels”. The right choice involved a difficult equation based on issues such as area of operation, time spent in ECAs, whether it was a newbuild or retrofit project, the space required for LNG tanks or scrubbers and fuel price predictions.

Marine gas oil was the technically easy but high cost solution for meeting the 0.1 percent sulphur content limit in ECAs from 2015, but other options were “clearly better” for such operations. Levander said that LNG delivered the lowest emissions and low price – a third cheaper than MGO. Although there were space and availability issues, he added: “LNG has great potential for newbuilds, offering enhanced value and short payback time.” The better retrofit option was to use scrubbers to clean SOx from HFO exhaust gas – “it’s existing technology and it works,” he claimed.

A session on dealing with sulphur revealed issues over the maturity of marine scrubber technology. The size and weight of equipment was a major concern among delegates, while one fleet director complained that trial installations of seawater scrubbers had shown failings in reliability, compliance and corrosion.

The latest systems were outlined by two manufacturers. Wärtsilä’s closed-loop freshwater unit was relatively small and therefore had a lower impact on vessel stability and payload, according to head of environmental services Leonardo Sonzio, who said payback time based on a 30,000-tonne Baltic ro-pax was around 2.5 years.

MAN project manager Marcel Lodder described a dry scrubber using limestone granulate costing €250 per tonne. He said a typical load lasted three weeks, pegged the increase in operating costs to between 2 percent and 6 percent and delivered payback after one year.