Concordia Maritime Charters Two More MR Vessels
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DAILY COLLECTION OF MARITIME PRESS CLIPPINGS 2018 014 Number 014 *** COLLECTION OF MARITIME PRESS CLIPPINGS *** Sunday 14-01-2018 News reports received from readers and Internet News articles copied from various news sites. The Rolldock Sun @ the ROG terminal for maintenance and upgrades. ROG, your partner for Dockside and Onsite services. www.ship.repair Distribution : daily to 38.300+ active addresses 14 -01-2018 Page 1 DAILY COLLECTION OF MARITIME PRESS CLIPPINGS 2018 014 Your feedback is important to me so please drop me an email if you have any photos or articles that may be of interest to the maritime interested people at sea and ashore PLEASE SEND ALL PHOTOS / ARTICLES TO : [email protected] If you don't like to receive this bulletin anymore : To unsubscribe click here (English version) or visit the subscription page on our website. http://www.maasmondmaritime.com/uitschrijven.aspx?lan=en-US EVENTS, INCIDENTS & OPERATIONS The Dutch pilot tender LACERTA operating off Ijmuiden – Photo : Simon Wolf © Concordia Maritime Charters Two More MR Vessels By Aiswarya Lakshmi Swedish tanker owner Concordia Maritime has chartered in two more MR (ECO) vessels, while also extending the contracts for two of the currently chartered MR (ECO) vessels by a further year. A contract to charter out the P-MAX tanker Stena Performance has also been signed. The contractual partner is a large global oil company and the vessel will be used primarily for niche traffic in the Middle East. As with previous charters, these latest contracts are joint charters with Stena Bulk, and Distribution : daily to 38.300+ active addresses 14 -01-2018 Page 2 DAILY COLLECTION OF MARITIME PRESS CLIPPINGS 2018 014 Concordia Maritime’s share amounts to 50 percent. The vessels will be operated by the successful MR pool within Stena Bulk Product & Chemicals (formerly Stena Weco). The contract for STENA PERFORMANCE is for six months, with an option for a further six months, and runs from January 2018. Kim Ullman, CEO of Concordia Maritime said: “We are acting based on our firm belief in a progressively stronger market from summer 2018 onwards. By chartering in a total of six vessels (50% each), we have now increased earning capacity significantly in a short period. At the same time, we continue our efforts to identify niche trades for our P-MAX vessels, where their unique properties are particularly beneficial." "The new P-MAX contract is a good example of this. For our part, the contract means that we secure employment for the vessel for six months ahead, at a level clearly above the market and standard vessels,” Kim added. Source : marinelink Pacific Basin’s JERICHO BEACH, shifting from anchorage to No.5 berth at Burnie to take on a part load of logs before moving on to Bell Bay and Eden to complete. Photo : Dale E.Crisp (c) Rising oil price poses another profitablity problem for containership operators By Mike Wackett Escalating fuel prices are posing a renewed risk to carrier profitability, adding to the twin threats of new container capacity coming on stream as softer demand hits after Chinese New Year. Brent crude is forecast to top $70 a barrel this week – its highest level since mid-2015 – having risen by 35% in the past six months. The KOTA LAHIR North-West bound in the Malacca Straits Photo : Capt Neil Johnston – Master Salvanguard (c) The trend shows little sign of abating, given the ongoing battle between OPEC and shale producers, as the former grouping – with the support of Russian oil producers – limits supply and geopolitical tensions, particularly over Iran. Bunker costs for ships are rising virtually every day, with heavy fuel oil (HFO) now around $370 per tonne, compared with approximately $300 a year ago. And with an 20,000 teu container vessel consuming around 250 tonnes a day at sea, even with slow-steaming, the financial implications for the container lines are clear. During Hapag-Lloyd’s third-quarter earnings call in November, chief executive Rolf Habben Jansen reflected on a 47% hike in the carrier’s fuel costs in the nine-month period and said rising bunker prices was “the biggest risk factor” to sustained profitability. Mr Jansen explained that although fuel price increases could, in theory, be passed on to customers, there was “always a delay factor in obtaining compensation”, which he said could “skew the P&L account”. And with the new 0.5% global sulphur cap coming into force in 2020, carriers will also be casting an apprehensive eye at the respective rising cost of low-sulphur fuel oil (LSFO), currently around $600 per tonne, compared with $460 12 months ago. Distribution : daily to 38.300+ active addresses 14 -01-2018 Page 3 DAILY COLLECTION OF MARITIME PRESS CLIPPINGS 2018 014 The PHILADELPHIA EXPRESS outbound from Antwerp navigating the Westerschelde Photo : Willem Kruit (c) Ship operators must soon decide on the fuel strategy for their vessels: do they go for LNG; fit exhaust gas cleaning systems, known as scrubbers; or simply use LSFO? Some carriers, including Hapag-Lloyd, have decided not to fit scrubbers, but if fuel prices continue to rise they may have to rethink. Writing in Ship & Bunker, Dr R Vis, a director of Singapore-based fuel oil analyst Viswa Lab, calculates that assuming a differential between HFO and LSFO of around $200 per tonne, the additional cost for a 20,000 teu ship would be $50,000 a day. And based on a vessel sailing for 300 days, Dr Vis reaches a mindboggling cost of an extra $15m a year using LSFO. In contrast, the cost of installing a scrubber system for this size of ship would be around $8m, and based on Dr Vis’s calculations, this outlay could be recouped in just over six months. However, bunker suppliers have also flagged up potential issues on the availability of HFO post-2020, on the current assumption that there will be fewer ships fitted with exhaust gas cleaning systems than not. Meanwhile, the decision by CMA CGM to specify their newbuild 23,500 teu ‘megamax’ ships be powered by LNG is increasingly looking a wise move. Source : The Loadstar Three reasons why maritime transport must act on climate change For years, the transport sector has been looking at solutions to reduce its carbon footprint. A wide range of stakeholders has taken part in the public debate on transport and climate change, yet one mode has remained largely absent from the conversation: maritime transport Tackling emissions from the shipping industry is just as critical as it is for other modes of transport. First, international maritime transport accounts for the lion’s share of global freight transport: ships carry around 80% of the volume of all world trade and 70% of its value. In addition, although shipping is considered the most energy- Distribution : daily to 38.300+ active addresses 14 -01-2018 Page 4 DAILY COLLECTION OF MARITIME PRESS CLIPPINGS 2018 014 efficient mode of transport, it still uses huge amounts of so-called bunker fuels, a byproduct of crude oil refining that takes a heavy toll on the environment. Several key global players are now calling on the maritime sector to challenge the status quo and limit its climate impact. From our perspective, we see at least three major reasons that can explain why emissions from maritime transport are becoming a global priority. 1. Stormy waters – the challenge of rising emissions If the shipping industry was a country of its own, it would rank as the 6th largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter worldwide, right between Japan and Germany. While the sector’s share in global emissions is currently at 2-3%, the demand for maritime transport is soaring – and so are emissions. From 2015 to 2016 alone, the slowest year in more than a decade, the world’s fleet still grew by more than 3.5%. The result of this trend? Under a business-as-usual scenario, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) estimates that carbon emissions from shipping could increase by 50%-250%. 2. All hands on deck – the imperative of fairness Neither international aviation nor international shipping were part of the climate change targets set under the Paris Agreement. As a consequence, these two specific industries were the only ones not included in any of the national climate action plans submitted by countries after the Paris agreement, often referred to as Nationally Determined Contributions. Things finally started moving in 2016, when the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopted its Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) to address carbon emissions from international flights. If the shipping sector does not follow suit quickly, its carbon emissions are forecasted to make up 10%-17% of global GHG emissions by 2050, posing a significant threat to the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming well below 2°C. From a political standpoint, holding major emitters like the shipping sector accountable is also tremendously important to the overall success of climate action: If powerful industries are not required to do their due diligence, how can we expect poor and vulnerable countries to understand that they, too, should be taking action? And how can we expect certain transport modes to act pro-actively on climate when others are exempt from any obligations? 3. Setting sail – the window of opportunity Pressure on the international maritime industry to take action has been increasing in recent years. For instance, in February 2017 the European Parliament voted in favor of including shipping in its EU Emissions Trading System from 2023, unless the IMO proposes comparable climate regulation on its own. Within this context, the IMO has committed to adopt an initial GHG emissions reduction strategy in April 2018, the year when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will also conduct its first global stock-taking exercise to measure progress on climate action.