Page 46 - ΝΑΥΤΙΚΑ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑ - MARTIOS 2023

ENVIRONMENT & SHIPPING
Dr Alexandra Ebbinghaus,
General Manager for Decarbonisation,
Shell Marine,
in discussion with Giannis Theodoropoulos
Ö As a fleet operator and supplier of
marine fuels, lubricants, and services,
what initiatives has Shell taken to con-
tribute to the decarbonisation of the
shipping industry?
As fuel suppliers, we have been pioneers and inno-
vators regarding LNG. We have been involved in
this field for a long time, so we base our current
initiatives on the experience Shell has gained
over time. Shell was one of the first LNG opera-
tors in the 1960s, which means we have developed
invaluable experience in LNG as both a cargo and
a fuel. From a fuel supplier point of view, LNG is an
important part of our business. LNG is a fossil fuel
with fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Of course,
there are challenges ahead regarding LNG infra-
structure as it is not available everywhere. But it
follows the demand in the sense that the network
is expanding. For every new fuel arising, there is
always a game of ‘’chicken and egg’’. LNG has
undoubtedly emerged as one of the critical fuels,
and around 30% of new deadweight orders are
based on LNG’s capabilities.
Regarding our chartering operations, we have
examined an enormous amount of data to see how
vessels are operated. We have also launched sev-
WE NEED TO eral digital services to help operators improve their
vessels’ operational efficiency. Being both a fleet
ACCELERATE operator and a supplier of marine fuels allows us
to participate in the discussion. I see it because I
EFFORTS TO attend the International Maritime Organization. It’s
an entirely different discussion when representa-
MITIGATE GLOBAL tives of oil and gas companies sit together. There,
the questions and viewpoints are different. In that
WARMING way, we have the whole picture.
á Considering the prices and medium
to long-term availability of currently
available alternative marine fuels,
which one do you believe will prevail in
the market?
We believe that a mosaic of different fuels will
prevail going forward. There is not going to be a
Dr Alexandra Ebbinghaus shares her thoughts on the replacement for fuel oil to a large extent. Ship-
prospects of alternative marine fuels, the chal- ping is very diverse, composed of very different
lenges shipping is facing on its journey towards segments. Each segment has very different ambi-
decarbonisation, and the initiatives Shell has tak- tions. The thing is that none of these alterna-
en in this direction. tives is currently as competitive as fuel oil. Take,
46
for example, short-sea shipping. There are a lot of do, but they will have to pay for it. But what about cus-
electrification initiatives which, however, cannot be tomers? What do they want? Are they willing to pay
applied in deep-sea shipping. Looking at the technol- extra to contribute to decarbonisation? There are a lot
ogy available today that can be installed on a vessel, of things shipowners can do to reduce their fuel costs
options include dual-fuel engines capable of running and improve fuel consumption. On the one hand, we
on methanol, LNG, and fuel oil. But the ability to have low-carbon and alternative fuels like biofuels,
use hydrogen and ammonia is not realistic yet due to but these will be significantly more expensive than
limitations. There are a lot of challenges associated fossil fuels. So, who pays for this price difference? Why
with various safety aspects, so I would say these are should shipowners bear the extra cost? Do they have
future options. The longer-term challenges are how the support of their customers? All these questions
to get low-carbon methanol at scale, how you get need to be resolved.
low-carbon methane or LNG, and how easy it is to use For shipowners, decarbonisation has two aspects. The
liquefied hydrogen onboard. first is getting more support from the wider maritime
Instead, we need to consider what is possible today community, which must be willing to pay more for a
with the existing engines. Biofuels have great poten- greener shipping industry. The second is a clear signal
tial as an alternative to fossil fuels. from the regulator that there will be a level playing
field. We need clear regulations that will accelerate
â From your collaborations with many sec- the decarbonisation of shipping and make it more
tors of the shipping industry (tankers, competitive. Nobody can afford to bear the extra cost
bulk carriers, containerships, etc.) so far, alone in the long term. Nobody in shipping has profit
which sector do you think has more poten- margins that allow them to say ‘’I will pay for this’’. The
tial to improve its operational efficiency transition will be quite expensive. Shipping is one of
via implementing new technologies and the transport modes, and if shipowners charge more
adopting new types of fuels in the short but nobody else does, why will customers want to pay
term? Do you believe shipowners are will- more voluntarily? However, if a regulation determines
ing to make significant investments in this that all transport modes must do it, the transition will
direction at this point? be much smoother.
Looking at the reported EEXI data for new vessels, it’s
interesting to see that the segment that consistently ç Do you believe the industry has all the
excels is containerships. That means this specific necessary technological tools to achieve
segment is doing more or finding it easier to improve the IMO 2050 decarbonisation goals? Or
its efficiency. Although tankers and bulkers have tra- will we also need a new, stricter regula-
ditionally operated very well from a design point of tory framework, such as slow steaming,
view, that doesn’t mean they can’t do more. I find it etc., to push the sector towards achieving
striking that very few newbuilds have energy efficiency
its environmental goals?
technology installed, such as air lubrication, draft trim As I previously explained, we need a stricter regulatory
framework for shipping to move forward. Shipping has
optimisation etc. I think there is a considerable scope
for oil segments to improve. Some vessels historically never disputed that reducing the sulphur emissions in
had it harder to improve, but we all need to look at marine fuels has benefits, especially for coastal com-
how accurate the information on energy efficiency is. munities. But nobody was going to use low-sulphur
The Fourth IMO GHG report was excellent. Looking
oil before 1 January 2020, the compulsory date. So,
at the data collected by the Sea Cargo Charter, an ini- the industry needs the constraints enforced by regu-
tiative launched by the charterers. We are now in the
lations. The IMO ambition is to decarbonise shipping
process of getting actual data rather than modelling as soon as possible, and most countries support this
data. And that helps us understand where we are in vision. But what does that mean for the speed at which
terms of energy efficiency improvement. shipping is regulated? Now that short-term measures
have been agreed upon, the IMO is proceeding with
ã What are the main barriers facing the the more intermediate and long-term measures. Part
shipping industry today on the road to of its initial strategy will be to revise the target. Shell
decarbonisation, and how can it overcome advocates for the IMO to raise the ambition level to
them? net-zero emissions by 2050. The necessity to combat
Why does a company decarbonise? I don’t think you climate change becomes apparent when you look at
will find anyone who doesn’t care about the envi- the IPCC data. To mitigate/reverse global warming,
ronment; everyone wants to do something about it. we need to move faster. We need to see what is pos-
Shipowners are quite pragmatic regarding business sible and set specific targets. Investments are also
decisions that lead to their ships’ emissions reduction. essential; that is not a shipowner’s problem only. It is
Therefore, decarbonisation is something they want to a challenge for all stakeholders in the supply chain.
47