MDT TIER III options with low sulphur fuels

Greener Shipping Summit Athens, Greece, 10.11. 2015 MDT TIER III options with low sulphur fuels Michael Jeppesen Promotion Manager Sales & Customer Support Marine Low Speed < 1 >

Agenda Greener Shipping Summit Athens, Greece, 10.11. 2015 1 Emission Rules Overview 2 3 4 5 TIER III options with low sulphur fuels Comparison, SCR versus EGR TIER III potential and future outlook Conclusions < 2 >

Emission Rules Overview Table of present legislation by IMO Regulation Status Emission Limit Area Geographical Region NOx TIER III 3.4 g/kwh NECA North Americas + Hawaii SOx MARPOL Annex VI 0.1 % Sulphur (3.5 % globally) SECA North Sea, Baltic Sea, North Americas + Hawaii CO2 EEDI Gram CO 2 / (Ton x Nautical Mile) Globally < 4 >

Emission Rules Overview Existing and Future ECA Areas MEPC 66, London, April 2014 Source: DNV GL 01.10.2014 < 5 >

Emission Rules Overview NOx control, Date of keel laying of all new vessels Tier I Global Jan. 1 st, 2000 17.0 g/kwh Tier II Global Jan. 1 st, 2011 NOx limit 14.4 g/kwh Tier III NOx ECA Jan. 1 st, 2016 3.4 g/kwh < 6 >

MDT Tier III Development strategy From focus on HFO to focus on Low Sulphur Fuel ~2006 2014 2014 Full fuel flexibility solutions EGR + SCR HFO solution design status 2014 0.1% sulphur optimized solution MEPC 66, London, April 2014 All NOx-ECA s also SOx-ECA s Newest possible NOx-ECA: ~ 2018 Ship owners expect SOx compliance by low S fuel Ship owners expect smaller/cheaper/less complex low sulphur technology < 8 >

TIER III, MDT Strategy Low sulphur fuel focus includes low pressure SCR EGR SCR SCR On Engine High-pressure Low-pressure (HP) (LP) < 9 >

EGR and HP SCR pro s & con s If this is important, you will lean towards: EGR SCR Low first cost/capex Fuel flexibility Same technology for ME and gensets No sludge production No excess condensate overboard compliance Easy and cheap commisioning/certification on testbed Low operating cost/many ECA hours Compact engine < 10 >

LP SCR and HP SCR pro s & con s If this is important, you will lean towards: LP SCR HP SCR Certification (Scheme A/Scheme B) Urea consumption SFOC penalty CAPEX Combination with SOx scrubber Fuel oil flexibility Compact and engine-close design No OPEX increase for exhaust gas temperature increase No need for separate catalyst regeneration strategy Free installation position in engine room Less complex piping/less gas forces Engine with more than 2 T/C < 11 >

Comparison, SCR versus EGR Capital cost Capital cost: EGR SCR Rough estimate < 13 >

Comparison, SCR versus EGR Installation - Tank sizes for Urea and NaOH EGR/SCR tank installation Assumptions Ship 182.000 DWT NECA time 600 h/year Bulkcarrier NECA Fuel 0.1% S Engine 6G70ME-C9.5 Tank margin 33% Power 16,4 MW EGR Urea bunker 2 times/year NaOH bunker 2 times/year Sludge discharge 12 times/year NaOH tank Sludge tank SCR Urea tank < 14 >

Comparison, SCR versus EGR Basic assumptions, OPEX Price assumptions Low sulphur MGO: 600 $/ton Urea, 40% (SCR): 300 $/ton NaOH, 50% (EGR): 200 $/ton Sludge disposal (EGR): 100 $/ton OPEX calculations are based only on 75 % engine load, ie no load profile assumptions! Maintenance assumptions HP-SCR and LP-SCR based on low sulphur fuel: SCR Catalyst exchange: every 5 years (excl. maint. of other equipment) SCR Catalyst exchange cost: 6000 $/m3 SCR Catalyst exchange basis: 1500 hour in ECA per year Electrical consumption, SCR: 5 kw/mw (excl. el. Power, LP-SCR burner for decomposition of Urea). Delta FOC penalty TII TIII: FOC (TIII) FOC (TII) Genset SFOC: 190 g/kwh, generator efficiency: 0.96 < 15 >

Comparison, SCR versus EGR Added consumers during TIER III operation Note: The change in the red curve is related to the change from EGR(BP) to EGR(TC) for > 70 bore engines. Note: Catalyst replacement is based on full exchange of element each 5th year. Not included: el. power for LP-SCR burner for decomposition of Urea. < 16 >

Comparison, SCR versus EGR Added Fuel consumption during TIER III operation Note: The SFOC penalty for EGR(BP) and EGR(TC) is slightly different at 75% SMCR this explains the reason for two EGR curves. < 17 >

Comparison, SCR versus EGR Added consumer- and fuel cost during TIER III operation < 18 >

Comparison, SCR versus EGR Added Total Cost, OPEX Note: The LP-SCR OPEX adds to the HP-SCR calculation the extra fuel consumption for LP-SCR burner to decomposition of Urea is show with the green colour.. < 19 >

Comparison SCR versus EGR Total Operational Cost Operational cost: EGR SCR Example 11.2 MW, 4800 h/year (TII) + 1200 h/year (TIII) < 20 >

Comparison SCR versus EGR Deciding factors for selection of Technology EGR On-Engine SCR HP or LP Deciding factors: Yard preferences First cost (CAPEX) Space requirements Installation flexibility Owner preferences Operation cost (OPEX) Operation simplicity Reliability Maintenance cost Waste disposal cost < 21 >

Potentials for TIER III compliance, if based on 50 % layout of engine power Implications for present IMO legislation: Min. required engine power in NECA would not be obtainable for most vessels, Dual SMCR NOx Certification would be necessary for TIER II and TIER III, NOx certification measurements with new SMCR (at 50 % load) would be unrealistic to measure at the new 25 % load. Two scenarios: 1) New NECA SMCR by simple reduction of engine load to 50 % (No re-matching) Limited potential for optimising engine parameters Some potential for reduction of SCR, no potential for reduction of EGR 2) New NECA SMCR by activation TC cut out Good potential for obtimising engine parameters Requires two or more TC s Some potential for reduction of SCR and for EGR Restriction for HP SCR at two TC s. < 23 >

NOx Tier III reference list EGR & SCR No. of ships No. of engine s Cyl St Bor e 1 1 6 S 46 MC-C 8.1 3 3 6 S 50 ME-C 8.2 6 6 6 G 60 ME-C 9.5 Type Mk Gas Technology Vessel Type Cap. Unit Shipowner HP SCR From Hitachi HP SCR From HHI LP SCR From Doosan Bulker Open Hatch Shipowner Country 38206 dwt Nissho Shipping Japan Shipyard Naikai Shipbuilding Shipyard country Engine Builder Del Year Japan HZC 2011 LPG tanker 20600 dwt YARA Norway HMD Korea HHI 2015 Ethane Carrier 82000 dwt Reliance industries India Samsung Heavy Ind. Korea Doosan 2015 1 1 6 S 60 ME-C 8.2 EGR Bulker 81600 dwt NYK Line Japan Tsuneishi Japan MES 2014 2 2 6 G 70 ME-C 9.2 EGR Crude Oil Tanker 1 1 6 S 80 ME-C 9.2 EGR Container 4496 teu 6 12 5 G 70 ME-C 9.5 GI EGR 5 5 6 G 60 ME-C 9.5 GI/E EGR LNGC Tanker Ethane Gas Carrier 158000 dwt Chevron USA 17400 0 A.P. Moeller- Maersk Samsung Heavy Ind. Korea Doosan 2013 Denmark HHI-SBD Korea HHI 2012 CBM BP Shipping UK DSME Korea Doosan 2017 Total SCR engine Total EGR engine 10 engines 21 engines 16.09.2015 MAN Diesel & Turbo Korean Shipyards Seminar RASA/ Dept LSP Emission Reduction Technology - Tier III < 24 >

TIER III, MDT Strategy Revised Expected Market Penetration < 25 >

MAN B&W is Leading Tier III Technologist Conclusions SCR and EGR proven in service. Developed for different scenarios: Primarily for max. 0.1 % sulphur in fuel For heavy fuel for Tier III compliance and later for Tier II compliance with fuel saving potential Both methods are commercially available now. General Recommendation for Tier III SCR and EGR 30 bore - 46 bore 50 bore - 70 bore 80 bore - 95 bore SCR preferred solution EGR alternative solution Both solutions recommended EGR preferred solution SCR alternative solution HP SCR difficult for more than eight cyl. MAN Diesel & Turbo Korean Shipyards OG-LS Seminar Emission Reduction 3339448.2014.05.07 Technology - Tier III < 27 >

Thank You for Your Attention All data provided in this document is non-binding. This data serves informational purposes only and is especially not guaranteed in any way. Depending on the subsequent specific individual projects, the relevant data may be subject to changes and will be assessed and determined individually for each project. This will depend on the particular characteristics of each individual project, especially specific site and operational conditions. < 28 >