Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 New Fuels: Hybrids and Blends Ian Crutchley 2020 Vision, Get Ready for the Sulphur Cap Date: 11 th July

18 Options for 2020 Compliance Essentially there are 2 options to comply: <0.5% Sulphur Fuels Conventional hydrocarbon fuels, blends. Alternative Fuels Abatement Technology, Exhaust Gas Scrubbers with HFO..And a Third Option, Non Compliance????? This presentation will focus on option 1 21

19 2020 What compliant fuels will be available? The choice of available marine fuels is greater than ever and will only increase: ISO8217 Distillates DMA, DFA, DMB, DFB, DMX, DMZ, DFZ ISO82127 Residuals RMA10, RMB30, RMD80, RME180, RMG180, RMG380, RMG500, RMG700, RMK380, RMK500, RMK700 Other Fuels: ULSFOs Hybrids eg HDME50 LNG Methane, Ethane, Propane Methanol, Ethanol 100% Bio-fuel Other Power Sources: Solar, Wind, Fuel Cells 22

20 CE Delft - Marine Fuel Demand Forecast Demand Million MT Fuel Type 2012 Demand 2020 Demand Forecast Diff % HFO % MGO / Hybrid % MGO / Hybrid 0 TOTAL * -84% 39* -39% % *Demand considering projected market uptake of scrubbers. Note Alternative fuels such as LNG not considered, but a limited effect on demand expected 23

21 The Financial Cost of Environmental Change? The International Transport Forum at the OECD stated: In 2015, the TOTAL increase in container shipping costs due to the ECA requirements amounted to USD 500 million. The 2020 requirements could add annual total costs up to USD 30 billion for the container shipping industry. Forecasters are stating the price difference between Distillate and HFO could rise to >$400/mt in A heavy increase in OPEX for anyone choosing the Distillate Fuel option!! But what is the cost to the planet if environmental issues aren t tackled? OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 24

22 Current Global Fuel Quality Currently 15% of all residual fuels and 9% of all distillates fuels tested exceed the ISO8217 test specification for at least one parameter. In 2017 VPS released 58 Bunker Alerts 36 (62%) related to Residual fuel 30% increase on (38%) related to Distillate fuel 70% increase on 2016 H1-2018: 33 Bunker Alerts 18 x Residual, 15 x Distillate (55% : 45%) 14 x Americas, 13 x Europe, 6 x Asia Key Parameters, Contaminants, Cat-Fines, FP, cold flow properties No. of alerts No. of Alerts VPS Bunker Alerts by Test Parameter Residual Distillate VPS Bunker Alert Volumes by Region Residual Distillate Residual Distillate Residual Distillate Residual Distillate Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q3 Q3 Q4 Q4 Americas Europe Middle East Asia 25

23 Current Global Fuel Quality - Distillates The perception has always been, Distillates are Problem Free??? Increasing issues with: Flash Point Blending with more volatile components Cold-Flow Properties PP, CP, CFPP, waxing of fuel. As demand increases, quality issues will become more common Fuel Change-over, low viscosity, poor lubricity, reduced stability, wax precipitation at low temperature, FAME or Microbial contamination. 26

24 Current Global Fuel Quality - Residual Fuels At present Residual fuels remain the largest volume fuel used on board. Therefore generates the largest number of technical issues on ships Most common issues are high cat fines, sediment sodium and density. Fuels may achieve the ISO8217 Specifications, but can still cause operational problems, due to the presence of materials not specifically covered by ISO8217. Issues with contamination are increasing. 27

25 Current Quality Issues - Common Fuel Contaminants Chemical Group CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS Comment Chlorinated hydrocarbons do not originate from any refinery processes and are therefore an indication that the fuel is possibly contaminated. Based on VPS experience, these contaminants may result in damages to fuel injection equipment. ALDEHYDE Aldehydes do not originate from normal petroleum refining and are therefore an indication that the fuel is possibly contaminated. Based on VPS experience, these contaminants may result in damages to fuel injection equipment. ALCOHOL Alcohol does not originate from normal petroleum refining. Based on VPS experience, these contaminants may result in increased sludge formation and possibly laquering and/or deposit formation. STYRENES TERPENES CYCLOPENTADIENE PHENOLS Styrenes do not originate from normal petroleum refining but are known to be present in some blend stocks for fuel oils. Based on VPS experience, these contaminants may result in increased sludge formation and possibly laquering and/or deposit formation. Terpenes do not originate from any refinery processes and are therefore an indication that the fuel is possibly contaminated. Based on VPS experience, these contaminants may result in increased sludge formation and /or damages to fuel injection equipment. DCPD does not originate from normal petroleum refining but are known to be present in some blend stocks for fuel oils. Based on VPS experience, these contaminants may result in increased sludge formation and possibly laquering and/or deposit formation. Phenols do not originate from normal petroleum refining. Based on VPS experience, these contaminants may result in increased sludge formation and /or damages to fuel injection equipment. KETONES Ketones do not originate from any refinery processes and are therefore an indication that the fuel is possibly contaminated. Based on VPS experience, these contaminants may result in damages to fuel injection equipment. 28

26 Current Quality Issues - HOUSTON Jan-May over 100 vessels suffered fuel pump failures with fuel supplied in Houston VPS - 50 vessels on our testing programme!! VPS Bunker Alerts released, 26 th April, 29 th May, 25 th June. Fuel is not single supplier specific. 10 suppliers, 20 Delivery Barges. Indicates an Upstream issue. 4-Cumyl Phenol found in over 40 samples from Houston bunkered fuel. Concentration range ppm. Detected by VPS In-house proprietary method utilising Acid Extraction/Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry. (GCMS) Findings Verified in two VPS laboratories (Singapore & Fujairah) Verified 4-cumyl phenol only seen in Houston fuels. 4-cumyl phenol used to manufacture resins and emulsifiers due to its sticky properties. Phenolic compounds found in fuel since All resulted in sticking fuel pumps. VPS: the only testing company to identify the cause. 29

27 Current Quality Issues Gulf of Mexico Corpus Christi Sludging of Fuel/filter blocking 10 vessels with Petroleum Coke contamination Panama Poly-methacrylate found in fuel via solids contamination analysis, causing sticking fuel pumps. 30

28 Current Quality Issues A Sign of Things to Come? Are there market forces, dictating more sophisticated blending practices, without consideration to the impact on operations? Availability, Margins, Mistakes 2020 will see an increase in types of fuel. Wider use of diluents, cutter stocks, additives, blending. All the above can alter the fuels chemistry, potential destabilisation effect, or damaging side-effect. Original oil source and refining also influences fuel quality: Eg Crude type and region, Shale Oil, Tall Oil Laboratories are now having to use increasingly high-end analytical techniques and methods to identify the cause of fuel problems. 31

29 What Can we Learn from Recent History? The 2020 Sulphur cap is by far the biggest, but it isn't the first major marine fuel shift in recent years. On 1st Jan 2015, a significant regional switch from 1% HFO to 0.1% MGO. VPS saw sample submissions move from: 80:20 Residual:Distillate to 60:40 Residual:Distillate. Suppliers launched a number of new hybrid fuels, becoming known as ULSFO s. Was there an impact on regional or global fuel quality in 2015 when these new fuels hit the market? 32

30 Environmental Legislation Impact on Fuel Quality 70 ECA Limit 1.0% sulphur VPS Past 5-year Bunker Alert History 60 No. of Alerts ECA Change to 0.1% Sulphur Residual Distillate Total 33

31 0.1% ULSFO s in 2015 The principle purpose of these new grades was to provide a fuel that met the 0.1% sulfur limit, but with a lower price than MGO. A significant characteristic of some of these ULSFO s is that the cold flow properties, stability and compatibility, can present a challenge on some ships. Density Kg/m3, Viscosity 8-50 CSt Low Metals Low Sediment Potential Good ignition High Pour Point Compatibility? Stability? Despite the operational issues these fuels presented initially, once the learning curve was overcome, they have become a widely used alternative to MGO. Will we see the same thing, but a 0.5% hybrid fuel? 34

32 0.5% VLSFO s for 2020? This fuel already has a name - Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil! The principal purpose of these fuels will be to provide a lower cost alternative to 0.5% MGO. But we don t know for sure how they will look - it will be likely mid-2019 before we see these fuels in the market. We can assume, like ULSFO s : these are likely to be blended products, with huge variances in approach, region to region, batch to batch. with more sulphur content to play with, potentially allows higher residual-based materials may be used higher density, viscosity and metal content. even more risk of instability and incompatibility segregation of fuel types will be more important than ever 35

33 Alternative Fuel Option - LNG Handling & Storage of LNG is more complicated than traditional fuels The infrastructure for distribution and supply has been relatively slow to develop, although improving. End of 2017 only 374 Vessels burning LNG. 110 inservice LNG vessels outside the LNG carriers. Forecasts estimate 2%-3% of the fleet will be burning LNG in Big regional variances in LNG quality, methane number variances of up to 31%. Methane number indicates fuel propensity to cause engine knock (auto ignition) 7% LNG Burning Vessels Vessels 13% 10% 70% LNG Carriers Cruise & Ferry Offshore Others 36

34 Alternative Fuel Option - Methanol Methanol can be produced from a broad range of feedstocks. Eg natural gas, coal, bio-mass million mt sold globally of which 25million mt used as fuel/energy. Compared to traditional fuels, methanol very low Sox, Nox, PM Available worldwide: Liquid at Atm pressure Biodegradeable Runs well in existing engine technology Very low Flash Point: C Lower energy content. 50% of HFO energy 45% of MGO energy 40% of LNG energy. 37

35 Summary Heading towards 2020 & Beyond Wider range/choice of fuels available with many technical considerations. Unless exhaust gas scrubbers are used, there will be a significant OPEX increase. Quality of residual fuel will likely improve. Today, we are seeing a major increase in fuel quality issues, and their complexity. This will only continue and worsen. We can expect many more issues with contamination from fuel production and blending. Important to work with a fuel management partner to measure and monitor fuel quality - improve operational efficiency, protect your assets, comply with legislation and ultimately save money. 38

36 So which Fuels Should we Use? Ultimate 2020 choice will be dependent on costs, availability, vessel type, age and trading pattern. In terms of fuels. 0.5% hybrid blends (VLSFO) Believed to be long term solution to the 0.5% sulphur cap. Operational challenges predicted in the early days post Fuel handling and segregation will be critical Conventional DM grade MGO/MDO with 0.5% sulphur An expensive solution, and not without quality concerns, but a known fuel type. Perhaps sensible in the short term post Alternative fuels a good choice for some vessel types, if supply can be secured, and vessel on fixed routes. 39

37 Thank you for your attention! YOUR FUEL MANAGEMENT PARTNER Questions? Please drop me an !

38 An overview of scrubber technology, challenges and costs North of England P&I Association 2020 Vision Seminar, 11 th July London Donald Gregory, C Eng., Director Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association Mark West, MIMarEST, Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association

39 EGCSA Objectives To protect and promote the interests of the EGCS industry To transfer knowledge on the environmental, technical & commercial realities of EGCS technologies Compliance with the Code of Conduct of the EGCS Association

40 What is a SOx scrubber? A cost effective device or system that reduces the sulphur oxides & particulate matter in an exhaust stream, typically from one or more engines or boilers so that the content is the equivalent or lower than that resulting from fuel sulphur & PM limits under international, regional and national legislation now and in the future. Enables demonstration of environmental credentials clean air, clean decks, clean seas

41 Wet scrubber configurations Graphics courtesy Pureteq:

42 Scrubbing media (typical data) Open loop once through Seawater (45 m 3 /MWh, power consumed ~1-2% scrubbed combustion unit power) Closed loop circulating system Freshwater (<20 m 3 /MWh, ~0.5-1% scrubbed combustion unit power) With chemical addition (typically sodium hydroxide, <16 litre/mwh for 2.70% S fuel) Washwater treatment bleed off rate to sea (~0.1 m 3 /MWh, continuous or intermittent) Zero discharge option Hybrid switchable Open loop mode Seawater Closed loop mode Freshwater with chemical addition (typically sodium hydroxide); or Seawater with chemical addition (typically sodium hydroxide) [Dry systems] Granulate (calcium hydroxide, 16kg/MWh, ~ % of combustion unit power)

43 The business case Spreadsheet available at

44 2020 without EGCS Bunkering & segregation plan Tank cleaning plan Consumption & changeover plan Non-availability plan Lubricant plan ISM Code Safety Management System update Training & awareness Ship & office based technical staff Bunker purchasing department Chartering department Board of Directors Financial plan Remember: BDN and analysis of fuel bunkered do not ensure compliance - PSC can take samples at the engine 00:00:01, 01 January 2020, 0.51% sulphur will not be legal. Just 2kg of 3.00% sulphur fuel in 1 tonne of compliant fuel risks non-compliance & action against the ship CompMon - Compliance Monitoring for MARPOL Annex VI Summary report of the experiences with the Handheld XRF device

45 But what about the uncertainties? Open Loop or Closed Loop or Hybrid scrubbers? Operation in Port? Impact of national or regional regulation? Environmental impact of discharge water? Contingency for EGCS Unit Breakdown? Contingency for EGCS Instrument Failure?

46 Typical turn-key installation steps Technical specification sent (ship and scrubber system) Ship inspection and laser scanning Detailed engineering design & planning Procurement and system delivery Pre-docking works in shipyard Pre-docking works onboard Drydock mechanical installation Project completion works Commissioning Courtesy Baltec Marine: Picture courtesy Pureteq:

47 Planning challenges Time short demand rapidly increasing Laser surveyors Experienced installers? In-service works Cabin availability Hot permit policy Safety, pax & crew Coinciding with scheduled drydocking? Engine-exhaust casing Pictures courtesy Baltec Marine: Dry hull penetration

48 Wet scrubbing The Sustainable Compliance Option 2018: >800 ships with scrubbers installed or on order 2019: 2000 ships. 2025: ~10,000 ships Mature technology with lower CO 2 vs distillate fuels No change to ship operations Can reduce emission from >5.00%S fuel to better than 0.50% or 0.10%S Lowest cost energy source Lower harmful emissions in port vs distillate Close monitoring - compliance assured

49 Visit our website THANK-YOU

50 North P&I Club 2020 Vision Seminar IMO 2020: The current state of play Jack Jordan Editorial lead, bunker news 11 July, 2018

51 IMO 2020: Biggest change for refining in a generation Global sulfur cap dropping to 0.5% removes main market for fuel oil, but supply has not yet been decisively lowered Availability of middle distillates remains uncertain Main options for ship operators: 0.5% sulfur fuels, scrubbers, non-compliance, alternative fuels 54

52 The IMO 2020 bunker fuel spec change will force 3 MMB/D of HSFO to switch to LSFO and Distillates. 8 Global Bunker Demand, MMB/D LNG Distillates Dist for Blending 0.5% S LSFO and Blends 2 1 LS HFO High Sulfur Residual Fuel Oil

53 Residual bunker fuels account for half of total HFO demand. The IMO spec change will force major shifts in global residue balances* MB/D * Excludes asphalt, lubes, and pet coke Distillate Bunkers New 0.5% S Blends - Distillates New 0.5% S Blends - LSFO Low Sulfur Resid Bunkers High Sulfur Resid Bunkers Non-Bunker Resid (40-50% Low Sulfur)

54 New 0.5% sulfur fuels Very little is known so far about the 0.5% blends refiners are developing Huge logistical challenge for ship operators individual fuel blends are unlikely to be compatible with each other, and need to be kept in separate tanks Detailed specifications, production volumes and delivery locations to be revealed late this year at the earliest 57

55 0.5% sulfur fuels what we know so far BP -- showcasing two possible new 0.5% fuels at industry events; an aromatic 163 CST blend and a paraffinic 218 CST blend ExxonMobil announced it will supply new fuels in Northwest Europe, the Mediterranean and Singapore. No word on US Gulf yet, and no specifications, but more announcements expected later this year Cepsa will sell a single 200 CST product at Spanish ports, thinks 0.5% sulfur fuels will generally be $ /mt more expensive than high sulfur fuel oil 58

56 0.5% sulfur fuels what we know so far Shell plans to make announcement in around October this year Lukoil plans to produce 30,000-40,000 mt/month of a single 0.5% sulfur fuel for Russian bunker ports from its Volgograd refinery Neste currently deciding whether to produce a 0.5% sulfur fuel for export outside the European ECA Total too early for us to comment on this topic. We are actively working on it. 59

57 Scrubbers Latest DNV GL data shows dramatic rise 817 ships with scrubbers installed or on order as of May Recent positive stories: DHT orders for 12 VLCCs, Frontline buys stake in Feen Marine Still a niche option don t expect scrubbers to get anywhere near original CE Delft forecast by 2020 (3,800 ships/36 million mt/year of HSFO demand) Watch out for cost rising as scrubbers become more popular 60

58 With tighter specs, the return on scrubbers will look very attractive in 2020, and will stay reasonable even later when spreads narrow with 2-4 year paybacks Payout Period, Years Current Spread: HSFO vs. MGO 2020 Spread?? MDWT Approx. Scrubber Cost, $MM VLCC Suezmax Aframax Panamax MR Product % S vs HSFO Spread, $/T Payout Period with $3.5 MM Capital Coast Payout Period with $4.5MM Capital Coast Issues : Open, Closed or Hybrid System New versus retrofit 9-12 month retrofit lead time

59 Non-compliance Non-compliance could be illegal or legal either from simply ignoring the rules, or through 0.5% sulfur fuels not being available at ports Uncertainty remains over extent of checks in Middle East and Asia Extent of legal non-compliance will depend on how widespread 0.5% availability is and whether US FONAR system is used globally 62

60 Alternative fuels: LNG currently the market leader Little uptake so far, but decision by CMA CGM to order LNG fueled vessels boosted its prospects Availability of delivery infrastructure now not a big concern IMO GHG deal has left a huge question mark over LNG s future as a bunker fuel Methanol and other alternatives may have an easier path in the long run 63

61 IMO GHG deal 2020 not the end of the problem IMO agreed initial strategy on GHG emissions reduction in April Requires at least 50% cuts to total shipping industry GHG emissions by 2050, 40% reduction in CO2 emissions per ship by 2030 Implies zero-emission ships will need to be on order by the mid-2030s; technology to achieve this at scale is not currently on the table Initial strategy to be revised by

62 Conclusions Two main problematic scenarios to consider in 2020: 1) Widespread compliance and widespread non-availability causes significant shipping delays and drives up crude prices by a few $/bl. Will national governments tolerate this? 2) Widespread legal and illegal non-compliance makes a mockery of the IMO process, triggering protests from NGOs, politicians and compliant shipowners. Would action be taken at a national or regional level to compensate? 65

63 Any questions? For any questions after today: or +44(0)

64 ENFORCEMENT OF THE SULPHUR CAP A Flag State Perspective: How the Legislation Will Be Enforced Around the Globe and How to Ensure a Level Playing Field The North of England P&I Association Limited s Seminar: 2020 Vision Get Ready For The Sulphur Cap London, UK 11 July 2018 Presented by: Nicholas Makar Regulatory Affairs Advisor

65 INTRODUCTION Overview of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI / Regulation 14 Fuel Oil Sulphur Content Standards Resolution MEPC.280(70) Consistent Implementation of Regulation and Enforcement Roles Scope of Output Flag State Obligations and Port State Control (PSC) International Maritime Organization (IMO) Work Plan Summary of Work Plan Outcome of Meetings (Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) 5) Future Committee Decisions

66 FUEL OIL SULPHUR CONTENT STANDARDS Protocol of 1997 (MARPOL Annex VI) Entered into force on 19 May revision entered into force on 01 July 2010 Regulation 14 Sulphur Oxides (SO x ) and Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions SO x controlled by sulphur content in fuel Progressive reductions Equivalencies addressed by Regulation 4 Fuel oil availability review (Regulation 14.8)

67 Assessment of fuel oil availability Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 70/5/3 and MEPC 70/INF.6: In all scenarios, the supply of marine fuels with a sulphur content of 0.50% m/m or less and with a sulphur content of 0.10% m/m or less is projected to meet demand for these products. Effective date for Regulation Decision to retain 01 January 2020 as the effective date No postponement RESOLUTION MEPC.280(70)

68 CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION Parties to MARPOL Annex VI: 91* * As of 13 June 2018 IMO Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) Database / Status of Treaties

69 LEVEL PLAYING FIELD Concerns regarding consistent implementation: MEPC 70/5/2: The 0.50% sulphur limit requires practical implementation measures, applied consistently to avoid commercial distortion associated with the higher daily operating costs for low-sulphur fuels and alternative mechanisms (e.g. scrubbers) Consistent application required to avoid commercial distortion (level playing field) Source: International Maritime Organization Fuel oil quality and ship safety New Output on the consistent implementation of Regulation

70 CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATION Scope of new Output: Preparatory and transitional issues Impacts on fuel and machinery systems Verification issues and control mechanisms and actions Draft standard format for reporting fuel oil non-availability Development of additional guidance, as appropriate, in assessing the sulphur content of fuel oil delivered for use on board ships Request ISO to consider the framework of ISO 8217 Consequential regulatory amendments and/or guidelines Safety implications relating to the option of blending fuels

71 PREPARATORY AND TRANSITIONAL ISSUES Ship Implementation Planning Ship focused Shift from 3.50% to 0.50% fuels Include impacts on fuel and machinery systems Ship-specific Implementation Plans (review/endorsement) Flag Administration/Recognized Organization (RO) role: Statutory survey and certification Regulation 5 Surveys Regulation 6 Issuance of Certificates Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (HSSC) Guidelines

72 VERIFICATION ISSUES AND CONTROL MECHANISMS Regulation 10 PSC on operational requirements Article 6 (MARPOL 73) 2009 Guidelines for PSC under the revised MARPOL Annex VI (Resolution MEPC.181(59)) Nearly 10 years old requires a comprehensive revision to address subsequent revisions (i.e., Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)) Parallel work (Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Correspondence Group (EGCS CG) / Intersessional Working Group on Air Pollution (ISWG-AP 1)) Regulation 11 Detection of Violations and Enforcement Article 4 (MARPOL 73) At-Sea compliance verification EGCS failure corrective action plan

73 FUEL OIL NON-AVAILABILITY REPORTS (FONAR) Standard format (standardized system) for reporting fuel oil non-availability Regulation 18 Fuel Oil Availability Each Party shall take all reasonable steps to promote the availability of fuel oils that comply with this Annex and inform the Organization of the availability of compliant fuel oils in its ports and terminals. Fuel oil non-availability situations Flag/coastal Administration co-ordination IMO GISIS database Regional regulations Source: AP

74 TESTING/VERIFICATION OF SULPHUR CONTENT MARPOL samples / in-use fuel oil samples Bunker delivery notes Consequential amendments to MARPOL Annex VI Definition of sulphur content (Regulation 2) Testing and verification procedures (in-use fuel samples Regulation 14/18) Appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI Fuel oil suppliers Regulation 18.9 and 18.10

75 Request ISO to consider the framework of ISO 8217 ISO/AWI PAS on Guidelines for fuel suppliers and users regarding marine fuel quality considering the implementation of maximum 0.50% sulphur content in 2020 Consequential regulatory amendments and/or guidelines Best Practice Guidelines for Fuel Oil Suppliers / Users / Member States and Coastal States Safety implications relating to the option of blending fuels ISWG-AP 1/2/12 OTHER ASPECTS

76 IMO WORK PLAN CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATION

77 PPR 5 OUTCOME Work Plan: Guidelines for consistent implementation of Regulation of MARPOL Annex VI (Implementation Guidelines) - single set Consequential amendments to MARPOL Annex VI Definition of sulphur content (Regulation 2) Testing and verification procedures (in-use fuel samples Regulation 14/18) Amendments to existing related guidelines 2009 Guidelines for PSC under the revised MARPOL Annex VI (Resolution MEPC.181(59)) 2010 Guidelines for monitoring the worldwide average sulphur content of fuel oils supplied for use on board ships (Resolution MEPC.192(61), as amended by Resolution MEPC.273(69)) Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864)

78 OTHER PPR 5 OUTCOMES In-use fuel sampling Draft amendments to Regulation 14 Adequacy of MEPC.1/Circ.864 Forwarded to ISWG (Added to Terms of Reference (TOR) Amendments to Regulation 14 (Prohibition on the Carriage of Non- Compliant Fuel Oil): Amendments approved, view to adoption at MEPC 73 (October 2018) The sulphur content of fuel oil used or carried for use on board a ship shall not exceed 0.50% m/m. Entry into force to be determined at adoption earliest 01 March 2020 Suggested Sampling Arrangement

79 MEPC 73 (October 2018) Adopt Amendments to Regulation 14 (Prohibition on Carriage of Non- Compliant Fuel Oil) expected entry into force no earlier than 01 March 2020 Action on outcome reported from ISWG PPR 6 (February 2019) Finalization of remaining items from work plan / ISWG outcome MEPC 74 (May 2019) Action on remaining items finalized at PPR 6 Approval of draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (subsequent adoption at MEPC 75 with entry into force in summer 2021) MSC 101 (June 2019) FUTURE COMMITTEE DECISIONS

80 THANK YOU Chris Lewis

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96