• 4 minutes Is The Three Gorges Dam on the Brink of Collapse?
  • 8 minutes The Coal Industry May Never Recover From The Pandemic
  • 11 minutes China Raids Bank and Investor Accounts
  • 34 mins Why Wind is pitiful for most regions on earth
  • 1 hour In a Nutshell...
  • 7 hours During March, April, May the states with the highest infections/deaths were NY, NJ, Ma. . . . . Today (June) the three have the best numbers. How ? Herd immunity ?
  • 17 mins Sources confirm Trump to sign two new Executive orders.
  • 2 days Joe Biden to black radio host, " If you don't vote for me you ain't black". That's our Democratic Party nominee ?
  • 2 days Putin Paid Militants to Kill US Troops
  • 3 days Happy 4th of July!
  • 3 days Putin Forever: Russians Given Money As Vote That Could Extend Putin's Rule Draws To A Close
  • 3 days Tesla Model 3 police cars pay for themselves faster than expected, says police chief
  • 4 days Victor Davis Hansen on Biden's mental acuity " . . unfit to serve". With 1 out of 5 Democrats admitting it. How many Dem's believe it but will not admit it?
  • 18 hours Coronavirus hype biggest political hoax in history
  • 3 days Apology Accepted!
  • 4 days The Political Genius of Donald Trump
Why Power Companies Can’t Ditch Coal Just Yet

Why Power Companies Can’t Ditch Coal Just Yet

The electric industry’s decarbonization program…

Oil Capped By COVID Fears

Oil Capped By COVID Fears

Oil prices rose this week…

Irina Slav

Irina Slav

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

More Info

Premium Content

Oil Industry Faces $1 Trillion Challenge

When the International Maritime Organization announced it would introduce a new, lower, sulfur emission ceiling for bunkering fuel, many in the energy industry worried that demand for high-sulfur fuel oil would suffer a blow from which it would not be able to recover. But then scrubbers—equipment that strips sulfur from bunkering fuel—were floated as a relatively easy to deploy alternative to switching to low-sulfur fuel. Now, however, scrubbers’ future is questionable.

S&P Global Platts reported recently that at a maritime industry event, the MARE Forum in Houston, scrubbers had garnered significant attention, and this attention had not been particularly positive.

A little over 1,500 vessels have been fitted with sulfur scrubbers as of October this year, according to the senior vice president of engineering and technology at the American Bureau of Shipping. By January 2020, when the new emission rules come into effect, the number of scrubbers both installed and ordered would reach 2,278, S&P Global Platts has calculated. And all these vessels will be producing sulfur acid-rich wastewater from the scrubbers and will need high-sulfur fuel.

One port, Singapore, has already banned the discharge of wastewater from vessels fitted with sulfur scrubbers. Chances are it won’t remain the only one. But there’s more. Singapore’s Port Authority also introduced a requirement that all vessels calling at the port should use 0.5-percent sulfur fuel. Again, Singapore is by far not the only port setting new fuel requirements for vessels in compliance with the IMO rules.

So, these 1,500 (and counting) vessels that already sport scrubbers or are to get one in the next year, will not just have to find a way to dispose of their wastewater without violating port regulations, but they will also need that high-sulfur fuel that the scrubbers scrub, and that will be less available after the 2020 rules kick in as most ports are preparing to offer the new, compliant fuel. In other words, scrubber-fitted vessels are facing a complex situation: not enough high-sulfur fuel and unfriendly port authorities banning the discharge of wastewater from these scrubbers. Related: The U.S. Oil Industry’s Dirty Little Secret

But they could just load on low-sulfur fuel, right? They sure could, but that would kind of make the investment in a scrubber meaningless. According to the chief executive of the Chamber of Shipping of America, Cathy Metcalf, the payoff period for a scrubber ranges between half a year and three and a half years. But if the vessel owners are forced to pay for costlier low-sulfur bunkering, then this period would likely extend.

As if that’s not enough problems already, some of the delegates at the MARE Forum warned that the scrubbers did not, in fact, reduce a vessel’s overall emissions because of the additional energy needed to scrub the sulfur from the fuel. When stricter environmental rules are enforced in the near future, this will also affect the benefits of opting for scrubbers instead of low-sulfur fuel.

The head of S&P Global Platts Analytics, Chris Midgley, said in September that the new rules will have an impact worth US$1 trillion on the energy industry over a period of five years as well as reverberations across many other industries. Vessel owners might want to think well before opting for scrubbers lest they end up costing them more, rather than less than switching to a more expensive fuel.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





Leave a comment
  • Oilmike on December 17 2018 said:
    Looks to me like the companies selling these scrubbers to the shipping industry have made out like bandits.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News