Strategic Energy Partnership in Shipping

Olaniyi, Eunice Omolola; Gerber, Patrick; Prause, Gunnar

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74454-4_10

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the case of VKG reveals that coping with SECA regulation is plagued by high investments risk, Olaniyi et al (2018b) introduced the MEC using the scrubber technology investment on a ship as a promising new model to overcome this dilemma. The highlight of this model is that VKG metamorphoses from being just fuel producers to energy service provider to safeguard SECA compliance.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study led to a comparative operating costs analysis between a decentralised MEC model of €41.67 per metric tonne and a decentralised HDS process of €40 per metric tonne of fuel. Both options have different investment characteristics; the central HDS plant costs about €150 million and enjoys a lifetime of 20 years, whereas the scrubber installation on a ship RoPax ferry costs about €5 million and has a lifetime of 15 years (Olaniyi et al, 2018b, 2018a, 2018c). More so, a €150 million investment in the HDS plant is equivalent to 30 investments in scrubbers for ships like the RoPax ferry, which suggests that the scrubber installations on ships are related to lower financial investment volumes and financial risks which are diversified and less when compared to the risk of a single HDS investment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparative Study on SECA Compliance Options for Maritime Fuel Producers

Olaniyi

Prause

2020

Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economie

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In January 2015, the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) regulations changed so that ships that ply the Baltic Sea and the North Sea can no longer use bunker fuel that exceeds 0.1 per cent v/v of sulphur. Many changes have been seen in the maritime sector, especially in the Baltic Sea region (BSR). From studies, the impact is still somewhat negative for some maritime stakeholders, such as small-scale fuel producing companies who must produce fuel that complies with the SECA requirements. The impact analysis of their compliance options shows that hydrodesulphurisation (HDS) option is the most viable option with a commensurable investment return rate, but it is highly risky and expensive considering the incessant plummeting of fuel price and the financial status of such companies. However, even though the situation looks bleak for the small-scale maritime fuel producers, a deeper probe revealed a chance for exceptional opportunities for growth and profit through a change of business model to the maritime energy-contracting model (MEC). The study zooms in on a case study of a fuel producing company and empirically compares the operating costs of the MEC model (as a decentralised option) and the HDS process (as a centralised option) to determine which option will be most economically worthwhile if adopted as a SECA compliance strategy to ensure a rounded and robust choice-making process for maritime stakeholders in such situations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Study on SECA Compliance Options for Maritime Fuel Producers

Olaniyi

Prause

2020

Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economie

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The situation of ports in the BSR is even more challenging, due to the issued directives from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) [12]. To ensure a sustainable reduction of emissions from shipping, the IMO follows a long-term global clean shipping strategy [13]. Thereby, in particular the sulphur emission regulations pose challenges for the shipping industry -namely the established Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) that are enacted in the IMO MARPOL Annex 2, and the introduced global sulphur cap [14].…”

Section: ____________________________________________________________________________ 2020 / 24 330mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blockchain for LBG Maritime Energy Contracting and Value Chain Management: A Green Shipping Business Model for Seaports

Philipp

2020

Environmental and Climate Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To reduce emissions in the maritime transport sector, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) follows a global clean shipping strategy. Among the different directives of IMO, currently especially the sulphur emission regulations pose challenges for the shipping industry. Related to this are the established Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) and the introduced global sulphur cap. To comply with the sulphur restrictions, according to the present technological state of the art, ship-owners have three options for their existing fleet: the installation of emission abatement technologies, the switch to low sulphur fuels, or retrofitting for the usage of alternative fuels. Regardless which option is favoured, most often selected solutions still depend on fossil fuels. The reasons for this can be traced back to the fact that supply of biofuels is not ensured in ports and generally seen as no profitable solution. This paper develops and examines an innovative business model with a special focus on liquefied biogas (LBG). The study bases on collected qualitative and quantitative data, which was used by applying the Business Model Canvas. The results will highlight that the business model bears the potential to promote LBG supply. Next to this, the research will show that blockchain and smart contracts are able to foster the implementation of the business model and optimisation of value chain operations. Lastly, economic advantages were highlighted within a case study that refers to the seaport Karlskrona in Sweden and the RoPax ferries from Stena Line that travel back and forth to Gdynia seaport in Poland.

show abstract

“…A closer look at the experiences in the Baltic Sea region reveals that most of the ships switched after the implementation of the SECA regulations in 2015 to low sulphur fuel to avoid the hassles of capital compliance investments [4]. Ship operators who decided to use new abatement technology like scrubbers experienced additional fuel consumption resulting to further CO 2 -emissions that partly canceled out the original intention of emissions reductions [5]. Consequently, energy-saving concepts gained importance in the shipping sector to reduce fuel consumption for running new clean shipping technology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investment Analysis of Waste Heat Recovery System Installations on Ships’ Engines

Olaniyi

Prause

2020

JMSE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study considers incentive provisions for investment decisions related to waste heat recovery system (WHRS) installations on ships to reduce CO2 emissions and improve ships’ engine efficiency. The economic assessment of WHRS installations in the shipping sector is not widely covered in the literature. A reason for this might be that the conventional financial evaluation of sensitive choices is commonly done through capital budgeting methods, which are not flexible enough to integrate future changes in fuel prices and long-term aspects of other costs. Thus, this work evaluates the WHRS investment using the classical budgeting instruments as well as the real-options approach (a more sophisticated approach) to accommodate the presumed expected future changes in the volatile maritime markets. Following the methodology of triangulation, three case studies of ships with varying operational conditions empirically validate the result to depict the practical use of the real-options evaluation method in investment assessment. The capital budgeting analysis reveals that the investment in maritime WHRS technology is only economically favorable under certain frame conditions projected in the work that shows a more realistic assessment of the project.

show abstract

Strategic Energy Partnership in Shipping

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

A Comparative Study on SECA Compliance Options for Maritime Fuel Producers

A Comparative Study on SECA Compliance Options for Maritime Fuel Producers

Blockchain for LBG Maritime Energy Contracting and Value Chain Management: A Green Shipping Business Model for Seaports

Investment Analysis of Waste Heat Recovery System Installations on Ships’ Engines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About