report from thereport from the istec / · pdf fileistec / environmental committeeistec /...

REPORT FROM THEREPORT FROM THE

ISTEC / ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEEISTEC / ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE

JOINT WORKING GROUP ON MRV (JWG/MRV)( )

INTERTANKO European SeminarpHamburg, November 2013

Leading the way; making a difference

INTERTANKO COUNCIL DECISION

INTERTANKO supports in principle the concept of MRV ofINTERTANKO supports in principle the concept of MRV of the CO2 emissions of ships in operations.

In addition, INTERTANKO will continue investigations and assessments on the best model of a MRV concept adapted to the specific operations of oil and chemical tankers.


INTERTANKO COUNCIL DECISIONInvestigation & assessments take into account the following principles/actions:

1. Ship’s efficiency is the best method to measure performance improvement with the fuel consumption being the critical

t (“ hi ’ ffi i ” h ld i b d bparameter. (“ship’s efficiency” should, in a broader sense be weighted and clarified versus the term of “transportation efficiency”)efficiency )

2. For internal use only, initiate data collection from all members th l f l ti d t ( 2010 2011 d 2012)on the annual fuel consumption data (years 2010, 2011 and 2012)

using the cumulative data on BDNs for each type of fuel.

3. Additional data should also be reported to assist in determining the best definition of ship’s efficiency when assessing the various proposals at IMO and the EC


assessing the various proposals at IMO and the EC.

JWG/MRV TERMS OF REFERENCEDetermine the best approach for INTERTANKO to assess fuel or vessel efficiency with specific recommendations on:

•mechanism for initiating collection of fuel consumption data (this data being identified as the common denominator of any option to be considered); •the best measure of improvement (fuel consumption or ship’s efficiency)•the best measure of improvement (fuel consumption or ship s efficiency)•if the latter, the best definition of ship’s efficiency•eventual collection of other data if found relevant to the best approach

id dconsidered •proposal on how to integrate or remove from the measurement the involvement / influence of other stakeholders (importers, charterers, cargo owners, etc.)•pros and cons of such measures also applying to EEDI compliant ships

General guideline for setting up a MRV system: the model should be simple (protect its credibility through its simplicity), easy to erif and se data alread mandated thro gh e isting reg lations


verify and use data already mandated through existing regulations

DATA COLLECTION FOR INTERNAL USE• Vessel # (for confidentiality, ship’s name or IMO # not required)

• DWT (max. summer draught)

• Type tankers (oil, product, chemical/product, chemical)

• Total time on laden voyages (hours) / reporting period (one year)*

• Total distance in laden voyages (nm) / reporting period (one year)*

• Total number of voyages / reporting period (one year)*

T t l b d (t ) / ti i d ( )*• Total cargo onboard (tonnes) / reporting period (one year)*

• Total time on ballast voyages (hours) / reporting period (one year)*

T t l ti t b th (h ) / ti i d ( )*• Total time at berth (hours) / reporting period (one year)* –

• Total fuel consumption at berth / reporting period (one year)*

• Total fuel consumption (tonnes) / reporting period (one year)* (HFO LSHFO MGO)• Total fuel consumption (tonnes) / reporting period (one year)* (HFO- LSHFO- MGO)

• Σ tonne-miles for all voyages / reporting period (one year)* * INTERTANKO proposed definition: “All completed voyages in one


INTERTANKO proposed definition: All completed voyages in one calendar year during which emissions have to be monitored and reported”

DATA COLLECTION FOR INTERNAL USE

Data required in a tabular format

Each row represents the data for one ship for one reporting period(e.g. 2010 or 2011 or 2012)

There should be separate reports / tables for each reporting period(i.e. one table for each reporting period)

Data received so far:

VLCCs 31Suezmaxes 37Aframaxes 77Aframaxes 77LRs 4Product 35Chemical 11 WE NEED MUCH MORE DATA!!


25 00

30.00 EEOI = CO2/transport work

20 00

25.00

15 00

20.00

10.00

15.00

5.00

10.00

0.00 Thousands DWT


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1.20CO2/Tot. Dist

1.00

0.80

0 40

0.60

0.20

0.40

0.000 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Thousands dwt


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

INTERTANKO Data2.0030

EEOI

CO2/Total Laden DistanceEEOI

1.6024CO2/Tot. Dist

1.2018

0.8012

0.406

0.000 DWT


0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

INTERTANKO JOINT WORKING GROUP ACTIVITY

Provide comments to the EU proposed MRV regulation & p p gDevelop a Monitoring Plan for tankers

P t th ith th EU C i i P li t dPromote these with the EU Commission, Parliament and Council

Continue to collect data from Members & Find best approach to assess tankers’ fuel efficiency pp y

Propose how to distinguish or remove from the t th i l t / i fl f thassessment the involvement / influence of other

stakeholders (importers, charterers, cargo owners, etc.)


COMMERCIAL INFLUENCE ON EEOI VALUE

10.00

“Transportation Efficiency” versus “Ship Technical Efficiency”

8.00

9.00

6.00

7.00

3 00

4.00

5.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

A B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 F1 F2EEOI 6.30 7.38 8.00 9.01 8.34 8.40 7.51 5.81 6.65 7.56 6.14 5.99 6.43 6.59 5.18 5.62 6.28 5.65 5.74 5.66 7.98 5.44EETI 6.28 6.13 6.99 7.35 6.63 4.69 4.45 4.31 4.98 4.42 4.32 3.81 4.05 4.58 4.97 4.64 5.24 3.86 4.20 4.57 3.83 4.44

‐


INITIAL EEOI DIFFERENCE OF 9 SISTER SHIPS

DATA COLLECTION: JANUARY 2010 – DECEMBER 2011


COMBINED UTILISATION & LADEN FACTOR

UTILISATION = ACTUAL CARGO WEIGHT (LADEN) / DWTUTILISATION ACTUAL CARGO WEIGHT (LADEN) / DWT

LADEN FACTOR = LADEN DISTANCE / TOTAL DISTANCE


BALLAST VOYAGES


INTERTANKO COMMENTS TO PROPOSED EU MRV

• Regional MRV will bring marginal benefit• MRV should be discussed at IMO• Consider data and results before moving aheadConsider data and results before moving ahead• “Transportation Efficiency” vs. “Ship Technical Effi i ”Efficiency”

• Simplicity in data collectionp y• Different approaches between shipping sectors

d lifi i f “ ifi ”• Adequate qualifications of “verifiers”• How “public” will be the data made?


p

EXPECTATIONS CORELATED TO EXPECTED BENEFITSS

Int. ShippingInt. Aviation

3%Waste3%

Others1%

KEEP IN MIND:

Energy Agriculture

4% KEEP IN MIND:

EVERY OTHERproduction

28%Agriculture

9%OTHER ACTIVITYDEPENDS ON SHIPPING

Households/service15%

SHIPPING

SHIPPING IS ASERVICE

Land Transport19%

Land Industry180 t CO

SERVICE PROVIDER

ITS ACTIVITY ISLand Industry18%

~ 180 mt CO2

~ 0.5% of global CO2

DIRECTED BY BENEFICIARIES TOSUCH A SERVICE


0.5% of global CO2

report from thereport from the istec / · pdf fileistec / environmental committeeistec /...

Documents