Lloyd’s Register Marine – Air Emissions from Shipping ... · Lloyd’s Register Marine – Air...

Lloyd’s Register Marine – Air Emissions from Shipping – Copenhagen, 25 Feb 2013

LNG-fuelled Deep Sea Shipping The outlook for LNG bunker and LNG-fuelled

newbuild demand up to 2025

Jesper Aagesen Senior Surveyor

Ship Design Specialist

25 February 2013

Lloyd’s Register Marine – Air Emissions from Shipping – Copenhagen, 25 Feb 2013 2

My Background and Experience

1997 Technical University of Denmark

Naval Architect, M.Sc.

1997 Carl Bro Marine

Project Manager

2005 A.P. Moller – Maersk, Newbuilding Dept.

General Manager

2010 Lloyd’s Register, Nordic Marine Business

Senior Surveyor, Ship Design Specialist


Overview of the Programme

• Setting the Scene

• Options for Compliance

• Lloyd’s Register LNG as Fuel Leading Projects

• LNG Bunkering Infrastructure Study

• Conclusions


Setting the Scene

• 96 weeks to go until 1 Jan. 2015

• Main compliance options:

• Low sulphur fuel oils

• HFO w/ scrubber

• Alternative fuel, e.g. LNG, methanol, DME

• We don’t believe in “one fuel fits all”

• LNG is a solution not the only solution!

http://voiceleading.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/mastering-time.jpg


Lloyd’s Register LNG as Fuel Leading Projects

• Viking Line Cruise Ferry

• Inland waterways vessels in The Netherlands

• Other projects & JIPs with leading stakeholders

• Huge LNG-carrier experience

• Risk assessments

• LNG Bunkering Infrastructure Study


Why Doing the LNG Bunkering Infrastructure Study?

Short-sea &

Smaller ships

Deep-sea &

Large ships

http://itmakessenseblog.com/files/2012/05/World-2.jpg


Bunkering Study – How We Did

1

Infrastructure

Existing oil-based & LNG

bunkering facilities

2

Supply LNG

Terminals imports & exports

4

High volume of

trade routes per

ship types/size

5

Trade routes

in/out ECA zones per

ship types/sizes

6

Shipowner's Survey

‘Beyond Compliance’

‘Early adopters’

3

Identify

Bunker ports with close proximity

to ECA Zones

7

Port Survey

Validate 10 top ‘most

likely ‘locations

2nd Stage Reality-based

approach Validation of findings by

stakeholders

1st Stage Process

2nd Stage Process


Limitations of the Study

• Not a technical study

• Not short-sea focussed

• Not trying to develop a new fuel price forecast

model

• Energy density/tank volumes not considered

• It has a global approach

• Considering deep-sea ships only

• The estimated number of LNG-fuelled ships are for

newbuildings only


Step 1 Top Bunkering Ports

Top 10 oil

bunkering

ports 2010

Through

put

(000’s t)

Market

share of

Top 10

Singapore 34,000 38 %

Rotterdam 13,000 15 %

Fujairah 9,500 11 %

Antwerp 6,108 7 %

Hong Kong 5,429 6 %

Gibraltar 5,047 6 %

Korea

(Busan) 4,559 5 %

West Africa 4,100 5 %

Tokyo Bay 3,494 4 %

Iran 3,135 3 %

• Top 10 ports > 35% of global volume

• NW-Europe, Singapore and Persian

Gulf account for abt. half of the

global volume


LNG Import Bunkering Hubs LNG Export

Steps 1-3 Oil Bunkering & LNG Supply Locations – N America


LNG Import

Bunkering Hubs

LNG Export

Steps 1-3 Oil Bunkering & LNG Supply Locations – Europe


LNG Import

Bunkering Hubs

LNG Export

Steps 1-3 Oil Bunkering & LNG Supply Locations – M East

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

Qatar Oman Yemen UAE Kuwait

mil

lio

n to

nn

es

LNG Import & Export Locations Middle East 2010, by Shipments

Exports

Imports

0

2

4

6

8

10

Fujairah Iran Ras Tanura Suez Canal

milli

on

to

nn

es

Middle East Oil Fuel Bunker Throughput - 2009


Steps 1-3 Oil Bunkering & LNG Supply Locations – Far East

LNG Import

Bunkering Hubs

LNG Export


Step 4 Identification of Major Deep-Sea Trade Routes


Step 4 Trade Routes & Consumption – Containerships

Figures are based on a round trip average FOC of a Panamax

abt. 127 t/day and a Post-Panamax abt. 190 t/day excl. port time.

Cont.ship Routes Dist.

(nm)

Transit

Days

Est. HFO

(t)

LNG

Eq. (t)

Asia -N Europe 8,257 21 2,667 2,134

Asia – USWC 5,695 22 2,794 2,235

Europe - USEC 3,302 10 1,270 1,016

S Africa – Europe 6,139 16 2,032 1,626

Asia – S Africa 7,569 15 1,905 1,524 Europe –

USEC

Europe – S

Africa

Asia – S

Africa

Asia –

USWC

Asia – Mid East

Asia – Ind Sub Med – ECSA


Persian Gulf to:

China, S Korea, Japan,

Taiwan, S Asia

W Africa – Asia

W Africa – USEC Persian Gulf –

USWC

Persian Gulf – USEC

Persian Gulf – Asia

VLCC Routes Dist.

(nm)

Transit

Days

Est. HFO

(t)

LNG

Eq. (t)

Persian Gulf -

USWC 12,045 39 3,775 3,020

W Africa - Asia 10,000 34 3,291 2,633

Persian Gulf - USEC 9,142 22 2,130 1,704

Persian Gulf - Asia 6,000 17 1,646 1,316

W Africa - USEC 9,142 10 968 774

Step 4 Trade Routes & Consumption – VLCCs

Figures are based on a single laden voyage with average

FOC of a VLCC abt. 97 t/day excl. port time.


Step 4 Trade Routes & Consumption – Capesize Bulkers

Brazil – China/Asia

S Africa – China/Asia

Aus – China

Aus – Japan

Colombia – Europe

Canada – Europe

Aus – Europe Figures are based on a single laden voyage with average

FOC of a Capesize bulker abt. 60 t/day excl. port time.

Capesize Routes Dist.

(nm)

Transit

Days

Est. HFO

(t)

LNG

Eq. (t)

Australia - Europe 11,630 38 2,280 1,824

Brazil - China/Asia 10,897 36 2,160 1,728

S Africa -

China/Asia 6,830 20 1,200 960

Colombia - Europe 4,974 14 840 672

Australia – Asia 3,730 11 660 528

Canada – Europe 2,767 10 600 480


Step 6 Shipowner Survey Results – All Ship Types


Step 7 Port Survey

• 25 ports approached globally

• 13 replies received

• Assessing the awareness of ports of LNG as a viable fuel

option for deep-sea shipping and what plans they may have

to provide LNG bunkering in the future

• Ideally this will identify the future global locations of LNG

bunkering and the conditions that need to be met in order for

LNG bunkering to take place


Step 7 Ports Selected & Basis of Selection

1. Singapore *

2. Rotterdam *

3. Fujairah *

4. Hong Kong

5. Algeciras *

6. Busan

7. San Francisco

8. Los Angeles

9. New York *

10. Panama Canal – Cristobal

11. Panama Canal – Balboa

12. Houston *

13. Gothenburg *

14. Piraeus *

15. Suez Canal – Port Said

16. Shanghai *

17. Zeebrugge *

18. Tokyo Bay - Yokohama

19. Southampton *

20. Vancouver *

21. Las Palmas

22. Nynäshamn *

23. Kochi (Cochin)

24. Gladstone

25. Sydney

Tier 1

Ports

Tier 2

Ports

Tier 1 Ports: 1. Known bunkering ports.

2. Known to be looking at their

potential to be an LNG bunkering

site.

3. The supply of LNG is close to the

port (within a 50 mile radius).

4. The port is located along a main

deep-sea trade route with high trade

volume. Tier 2 Ports: 1. Ports considered as early adopters.

2. Bunkering ports that ships may be

able to deviate to before entering an

ECA.

3. Trade volume specific to particular

ship type; bulk carriers transit

Sydney & Gladstone.


Ports that see themselves as drivers

of change to LNG as fuel

Yes

62%

No

38%

Step 7 Port Survey Results

Ports that have carried out

research into LNG bunkering

Yes

54%

No

46%


2nd Stage LNG Bunkering Demand Model

• Containerships, tanker, bulkers and cruise ships

• Factors considered per shiptype:

• All findings and strands from the steps 1-7

• Representative deep-sea trade routes per shiptype

• Confirmed ECAs and Global sulphur limits

• LNG compared to HFO (w/ scrubber) and MGO options and installation costs of alternative technologies

• Propensities to bunker LNG as fuel depending on time in ECAs and savings potential compared to MGO and scrubber

• HFO and MGO bunker price developments relative to LNG bunker prices regionally for 2012-25

• Dynamic and interactive model with “fluid” assumptions


LNG Bunkering Demand Model – Driving Factors & Scenarios

Factors Assumption

s Base Case High Case -25 %

Low Case +25

%

Regulatory

complianc

e

ECAs Confirmed ECAs only Confirmed ECAs

and Japan,

Singapore and

Panama by 2018

Confirmed ECAs

only

Global sulphur

cap

From 2020 From 2020 From 2023

Future

newbuildin

g demand

Newbuilding %

propensities to

select LNG as

fuel

Increase 2020+

propensities by 50 %

Increase 2020+

propensities by

further 25 %

Decrease 2020+

propensities by 25

%

Commercia

l savings

HFO/MGO price

forecasts

Driven by y-o-y crude

oil price changes

As base case As base case

LNG bunker

price forecasts

Driven by y-o-y price

changes of HFO (75

%) & Henry Hub (25 %)

Base case price -25

%

Base case price

+25%


LNG Bunkering Demand Model – Propensities

ECA-% Propensity of newbuildings to

adopt LNG as fuel

Scenarios 2012-19 2020+

Base

2020+

High

2020+

Low

Global

cap

2020

Global

cap

2020

Global

cap

2023

< 5 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

5 – 25 % 10 % 15 % 19 % 11 %

25 – 55 % 20 % 30 % 38 % 23 %

55 – 75 % 25 % 38 % 47 % 28 %

75 – 100 % 30 % 45 % 56 % 34 %

OPEX

Savings

by LNG

vs.

HFO/MG

O

Propensity

for newb.

to adopt

LNG as

fuel

< -10 % 0 %

-10 – 0 % 20 %

0 – 10 % 40 %

10 – 20 % 60 %

20 – 30 % 80 %

> 30 % 100 %


LNG Bunkering Demand Model – Fuel Price Assumptions

Fuel Price 2012

(USD/MMBtu)

Price 2012

(USD/t)

Price 2012

(USD/t oil eq.)

HFO ~700 ~700

MGO (&

MDO) ~1000 ~1000

LNG Europe 14 664 531

LNG America 10 474 379

LNG Asia 20 948 758


The Demand Model – Ship Demand Forecast 2012-25

Ship type Newb.

(cum.)

LNG-

fuelled

newb.

(cum.)

LNG-

fuelled

newb. per

ship type

Share of

LNG-

fuelled

newb.

Container 1,898 110 6 % 17 %

Bulk 7,305 275 4 % 42 %

Oil tankers 1,977 146 7 % 22 %

Cruise 230 25 11 % 4 %

Chem. tankers 1,614 14 1 % 2 %

LPG tankers 522 4 1 % 1 %

General cargo 1,313 49 4 % 8 %

Car carriers 711 30 4 % 5 %

Total 15,570 653 4 % 100%


LNG Bunkering Demand Model – Overall Ship Demand

29

Scenario Base case High case Low case

Total newb. 653 1,963 13


Next Steps…

• Continual (yearly) updates of the model and press releases of findings

• Continual validation of the model and investigate appetite for JIPs with:

• Gas supplier

• Engine maker

• Shipyard

• Shipowner

• Port terminal operator


Conclusions

• 1 Jan. 2015 is getting closer: From today 96 weeks to go!

• Existing bunkering hubs are well positioned to supply LNG for ships

• LNG bunker infrastructure is a major challenge

• Short-term: MGO is seen as a solution

• Long-term: LNG for deep-sea ships for container and cruise ships Still some doubt among tanker owners

• Solutions will be ship type and trade route specific

• The driving factors are supply, price, ECA-% and global cap date

• We estimate abt. 650 LNG-fuelled newbuildings up to 2025

• LNG is a solution not the only solution!

• Report for download: www.lr.org/bunkering


For more information please contact:

Jesper Aagesen

Senior Surveyor

Ship Design Specialist

Lloyd’s Register EMEA

Strandvejen 104A, 2.

DK-2900 Hellerup

Denmark

T +45 3948 4261

E [email protected]

W lr.org/marine

Lloyd’s Register Marine – Air Emissions from Shipping – Copenhagen, 25 Feb 2013

Thank you for your attention!

Lloyd’s Register Marine – Air Emissions from Shipping ... · Lloyd’s Register Marine – Air...

Documents

Transcript of Lloyd’s Register Marine – Air Emissions from Shipping ... · Lloyd’s Register Marine – Air...