One Manato

Hapag-Lloyd and ONE join Maersk/IBM blockchain platform TradeLens

Hapag-Lloyd and merged Japanese container carrier Ocean Network Express (ONE) are the latest box shipping lines to join the IBM/Maersk Line-led blockchain initiative TradeLens.

The news means more than half the world’s container shipping capacity is part of the TradeLens project, following the addition of MSC and CMA CGM at the beginning of June. Of the top six largest box carriers, just Cosco/OOCL is not part of the project.

“The addition of more leading carriers to TradeLens will help global supply chain customers expand and explore the benefits of digitisation and deliver new opportunities to the increasing number of TradeLens ecosystem participants across the global supply chain,” said Vincent Clerc, chief commercial officer at Maersk.

“As a neutral industry platform, TradeLens offers supply chain visibility, ease of documentation and the potential of introducing new products on top of the platform. These attributes bring new opportunities for the Maersk transformation towards becoming an end-to-end container logistics company improving the experience and services we offer the customers,” he added.

Hapag-Lloyd and ONE will each operate a blockchain node, participate in consensus to validate transactions, host data and assume the role of ‘trust anchors’ – or validators – for the network.

Both companies will be represented on TradeLens’ advisory board, which includes members from across the supply chain to advise on standards for neutrality and openness.

“TradeLens has made significant progress in launching a much-needed transformation in the industry, including its partnership model,” said Martin Gnass, managing director of information technology at Hapag-Lloyd.

“Now, with five of the world’s six largest carriers committed to the platform, as well as many other ecosystem participants, we can collectively accelerate that transformation to provide greater trust, transparency and collaboration across supply chains and help promote global trade.”

A senior TradeLens executive added that blockchain technology was ideally suited for large networks of disparate partners, given that established a “shared, immutable record of all the transactions that take place within a network and enabled permissioned parties access to secured data in real time”.

Bridget van Kralingen, senior vice president of global industries, clients, platforms & blockchain at IBM, explained: “Through improved trust, simplicity and improved insight into provenance, blockchain solutions such as TradeLens are delivering proven value across business processes for our clients and their ecosystems.

“Massive new efficiencies in global trade are now possible, and we’re seeing similar effects across the food industry, mining, trade finance, banking and other industries where the value of blockchain is more apparent than ever before,” she added.

Source: The Loadstar

china usa

China-US trade war won’t affect global container supply chains

The trade dispute between the US and China could have fewer ramifications across global container supply chains than initially thought.

According to new research from Drewry, although the transpacific trade, particularly headhaul eastbound, is expected to be hit hard by the introduction of billions of dollars’ worth of new tariffs, the way China has established itself as the world’s factory means other trades should be less affected.

“Potential losers in this trade war will be those countries that provide the raw materials and semi-finished goods to China that go into the re-export of the final products to the US,” said the analyst. “The US itself could suffer as China uses up some of its exports for re-exports.”

It added: “The thing is that China has developed its manufacturing capacity to such an extent that it barely needs inputs from the rest of the world to support its exports, which should limit the collateral damage.”

Drewry explained that the tariffs were likely to increase demand for manufacturing in countries other than China, which, due to the way many production processes typically involve several tiers of manufacturing with intermediate goods also being shipped around the world, container lines could actually see a volume fillip on other trades from the dispute.

“As final goods sourcing moves to countries currently without the same manufacturing eco-system as China, they will require more intermediate inputs, meaning more production fragmentation.

“Where those links establish themselves will determine how beneficial the process is for shipping lines. More intra-Asia trade will boost demand for shipping services and put a greater onus on smaller feeder ships, whereas greater regional trade in North America and Europe would be less advantageous due to overland opportunities,” it said.

“There will be some short-term disruption to the container market as new trading links are developed, but further fragmentation of production will boost the need for shipping, assuming demand levels are sustained. For the foreseeable future, China will remain the world’s container export hub, albeit a slightly smaller one,” it concluded.

And a senior freight forwarding executive told The Loadstar at the recent Transport Logistic show in Munich that the trade dispute could present a boon for forwarders willing to help shippers design their supply chains.

Essa Al-Saleh, chief executive of Agility, said: “Trade will follow the path of least resistance. People will find other opportunities. Some movements are opportunistic because of trade barriers, some are more long-term, based on labour, regulations or a combination of both.”

“Global supply chains are becoming more complex – there are lots of locations that can add more value, and there are some trends towards making supply chains shorter, some of it due to cost, or predictability.

“Costs are going up in China, but they have built a great ecosystem, that gives it a certain stickiness, so it’s hard to move out. Tariffs will have a negative impact on Mexico. Forwarders don’t just offer port-to-port; it’s end-to-end, and they can add value and service in between.

“You need agility and resilience in the supply chain – products may shift, or there may be quotas – the key thing is to understand the pain point: forwarders are always in demand, it’s never all doom and gloom; it’s about engagement with clients,” he explained.

Source: The Loadstar

container port

Bunker market not ready for IMO 2020

The bunker market is far from ready for the substantial switch in demand to low-sulphur fuel, when the IMO’s 0.5% cap comes into force on 1 January next year, according to the Marine Bunker Exchange (MABUX). 

In an article published by international shipping association BIMCO, the bunker exchange cautions that “shipowners are readybut the bunker market is not” –adding that reports from oil majors regarding the delivery of LSFO (low-sulphur fuel oil) “are concerning”. 

MABUX estimates that the global shipping fleet consumes some 5.3m barrels a day, with about 4m of these being non-compliant after the new IMO regulations kick in. 

Given that the majority of demand is expected to shift to LSFO to comply with IMO 2020, it calculates that the market for some 3m barrels will effectively “disappear overnight”. 

Moreover, the premium for LSFO remains unclear, meaning ship operators cannot properly budget for the increase in their fuel costs, or for that matter advise clients how much extra they expect them to pay. 

“The 0.5% fuel is not physically in the market right now… we have only futures with delivery time in December 2019,” said Sergey Ivanov, director at MABUX.

We do not have all the answers as to when, where and how much, making it difficult to forecast what the exact margin will be between high-sulphur fuel oil (HFO) and LSFO,” he said. 

“Right now, we see that marine gas oil trades at a premium of about $250 per ton more than HFO, but the forward curve forecast is that it may rise to about $380 per ton at the beginning of 2020,” said Mr Ivanov. 

MABUX understands, from its discussions with the main global bunker suppliers, that the first regular deliveries of the maximum 0.5% compliant fuel to bunker ports around the world is expected some time in the third quarter. 

Operators with ships that do not have scrubbers installed, which enable vessels fitted with the exhaust gas cleaning systems to continue to burn HFO, will need to start cleaning their tanks and replenishing with LSFO several weeks before the IMO 2020 regulations come into force. 

And in discussions with the oil bunker suppliers, a confusing outlook has emerged. 

One oil major surveyed by MABUX said it would be delivering LSFO to 18 ports in the world, including main hubs, and would continue to deliver HFO to 15 ports. Another said it would only be delivering LSFO to seven ports, for now. 

“This picture suggests the question of availability of very low-sulphur fuel is critical at this point. No one is sure that there will be enough LSFO in all the main ports in the world,” said Mr Ivanov. 

“In our view, shipowners are ready. Many are in a position now where they can say ‘give me compliant fuel and I will adjust my power system, I will train my crew and start using it’.

“But they need the compliant fuel and they cannot get that now. They do not currently have much choice. Many of them are ready, but the bunker market is not,” he warned.

Source: The Loadstar

china usa

U.S. begins collecting higher tariffs on Chinese goods arriving by sea

The United States began collecting higher, 25% tariffs on many Chinese goods arriving in U.S. seaports on Saturday morning in an intensification of the trade war between the world’s two largest economies and drawing retaliation from Beijing.

U.S. President Donald Trump imposed the tariff increase on a$200 billion list of Chinese goods on May 10, but had allowed a grace period for sea-borne cargoes that departed China before that date, keeping them at the prior, 10% duty rate.

The U.S. Trade Representative’s office in a May 15 Federal Register notice set a June 1 deadline for those goods to arrive in the United States, after which U.S. Customs and Border protection would begin collecting the 25% duty rate at U.S. ports. The deadline expired at 12:01 a.m. EDT on Saturday

The tariff increase affects a broad range of consumer goods, and intermediate components from China including internet modems and routers, printed circuit boards, furniture, vacuum cleaners and lighting products.

Earlier on Saturday, China began collecting higher retaliatory tariffs on much of a $60 billion target list of U.S. goods. The tariffs, announced on May 13 and taking effect as of midnight in Beijing (1600 GMT), apply additional 20% or 25% tariffs on more than half of the 5,140 U.S. products targeted. Beijing had previously imposed additional rates of 5% or 10% on the targeted goods.

No further trade talks between top Chinese and U.S. negotiators have been scheduled since the last round ended in a stalemate on May 10, the same day when Trump announced higher tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods and then took steps to levy duties on all remaining Chinese imports.

China ordered the latest tariff increases in response to Trump’s move.

Trump has accused China of breaking a deal to settle their trade dispute by reneging on earlier commitments made during months of negotiations. China has denied the allegations.

Beijing has grown more strident in recent weeks, accusing Washington of lacking sincerity and vowing that it will not cave to the Trump administration’s demands.

Its rhetoric has hardened particularly since Washington put Chinese company Huawei Technologies Co Ltd on a blacklist that effectively bans the firm from doing business with U.S. companies.

Source: Reuters.com

lng gas

Carriers turning to scrubbers to comply with IMO 2020

Around 16% of the ocean carrier global fleet – equating to 36% in terms of teu capacity – will be equipped with exhaust gas cleaning scrubber systems to comply with the IMO 2020 0.5% sulphur cap.

Ships with approved scrubber systems installed will be allowed to continue to burn heavy fuel oil (HFO) after 1 January next year, but other vessels will need to bunker with low-sulphur fuel oil (LSFO), which is expected to carry a premium of around $200 per tonne.

And with ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) consuming upwards of 100 tonnes a day at sea, the cost savings for a voyage with scrubber-fitted ship are likely to be substantial.

The consultant estimates that, according to a survey, more than 840 containerships are set to be equipped with scrubbers, for a total capacity of 8.09m teu, which includes 590 planned retrofits.

It said: “With the cost of scrubbers falling rapidly, to just $3-$5m a unit compared with $5-$8m a year ago, the scrubber option has become more attractive for owners.”

It noted that several carriers, including Maersk Line and Hapag-Lloyd, which had initially expressed doubts over the use of scrubbers, had “changed their minds”.

However, carriers that expressed scepticism or simply sat on the fence seem to have lost the cost-saving initiative to rivals that were in the scrubber camp from the moment the IMO approved the low-sulphur regulations in late 2016.

Famously, MSC’s chief executive called its strategy to install scrubbers on many of the ships in its fleet as a “no brainer”, whereas Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd’s executives argued that the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems was “not the long-term answer”.

Of the 12 top-ranked carriers, Alphaliner said, MSC had the “most extensive scrubber programme”, with more than 200 ships expected to have systems installed. Second is Taiwanese carrier Evergreen, with a retrofit and newbuild scrubber programme for around 140 vessels.

CMA CGM has “already committed” to 80 scrubber units, said the consultant, a number that is expected to climb to over 100 units by 2021.

Elsewhere, ambitious South Korean carrier HMM plans to have over half of its fleet of more than 50 ships equipped with scrubbers, and has made its strategy for IMO 2020 compliance a key part of its planned recovery from heavy loss-making.

Meanwhile, Maersk has said that it would install scrubbers on around 10% of its ships, and has allocated $263m for its owned fleet. It will supplement this with an unspecified number of chartered vessels fitted with scrubbers.

Carriers will need to begin bunkering ships not fitted with scrubber systems with LSFO in the final quarter of the year, in order to be compliant with the new IMO regulations.

Source: Alphaliner / The Loadstar

global

IMO talks work towards climate goals

Tightened energy efficiency targets and a commitment to further discuss proposed speed reduction rules were the key outcomes of the International Martime Organisation’s (IMO) latest round of talks, held in London last week.

But environmental campaigners were quick to argue the results showed a “total lack of ambition” on the part of the shipping industry, which currently emits three per cent of global CO2 emissions but risks seeing its share expand to 10 per cent by 2050 unless efforts to decarbonise accelerate.

With some members and leading shipping operators calling for bolder climate policies and others continuing to push back against proposals that they fear would impose new costs on their national shipping industries, the IMO agreed to tighten energy efficiency targets for new vessels across seven ship types.

The accelerated targets for containers, general cargo ships, hybrid diesel-electric cruise ships, and LPG and LNG carriers cover about 30 per cent of ships and about 40 per cent of CO2 emitted from ships subject to energy efficiency regulations.

The measures could reduce CO2 emissions by 750 million tonnes of CO2 cumulatively from 2022 to 2050, equivalent to about two per cent of all emissions from the industry over that time period, according to an analysis by the International Council on Clean Transportation.

The IMO also committed to considering additional requirements for new ships after 2025 and looking at new efficiency requirements for in-use vehicles at the next meeting, fueling hopes standards could be strengthened as investment in cleaner shipping technologies steps up.

“IMO’s move shows that further efficiency improvements are still possible for fossil fueled ships,” said Bryan Comer, senior researcher in the ICCT’s marine program. “Future standards should promote new technologies like wind assist and eventually zero emission fuels like hydrogen and electricity.”

However, a decision on whether to implement speed reduction targets was kicked down the road, and will now be taken up at the IMO’s next GHG working group in November. The deferral of any decision on speed limits came despite a joint letter signed by over 100 shipping CEOS ahead of the MEPC74 talks calling for global speed limits at sea, which is widely seen as the most effective short-term measure for curbing the industry’s emissions.

“We’ve seen over 100 individual shipping companies united with NGOs in calling for speed reduction, overruling the policy stance of the industry associations,” said Faig Abbasov, shipping policy manager at Transport and the Environment. “The shipping industry associations no longer represent the best interests of shipping companies.”

Countries who blocked further action reportedly included Saudi Arabia, the US, Brazil, and Cook Islands, with opposition to the speed reduction proposals also understood to have come from Chile and Peru.

The outcome from the meeting should provide a boost to investment in fuel efficiency measures across the sector, but it will also provide further ammunition for those shipping operators and environmental campaigners who accuse the international body of failing to deliver sufficiently ambitious climate policies.

Aviation and shipping are the only two industries to operate outside the framework of national climate action plans established by the Paris Agreement, with the IMO and its sister body the International  Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) instead tasked with delivering new policies to curb emissions from the carbon intensive sectors.

But while the ICAO has come forward with detailed plans for an international carbon offsetting scheme, albeit one that has continued to face criticism from green groups, IMO has made much slower progress in delivering new policy proposals.

In April 2018, the IMO responded to post Paris Agreement calls for it to deliver a new strategy by announcing targets to reduce the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 per cent by 2050 compared to 2008 levels. As a mid-term goal, it pledged to reduce the carbon intensity of the sector by at least 40 per cent by 2030. In order to achieve these targets, it promised to produce a detailed plan for emissions reduction by 2023 as well as immediate measures to achieve greenhouse gas reductions before this.

Without extensive action to tackle emissions, the shipping industry – which was exempted from the Paris Agreement – could see them grow 250 per cent by 2050 as trade increases, according to a 2014 study by the IMO.

A 2018 report from the OECD warned that failure to act would leave the sector emitting the equivalent of well over 200 coal power stations by 2035. The think tank called for more research into zero carbon technologies, greater transparency on carbon footprints within the industry, a carbon price for global shipping, and other mechanisms to incentivise efficiency such as ports differentiating fees based on environmental criteria.

Also last week, environmental campaigners demanded a moratorium on the shipping industry’s use of Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCS), known as scrubber technology.

EGCS were seen as a possible route to ensure compliance with IMO rules which will enforce the use of bunker fuels with a sulphur content of 0.5 per cent from 2020, down from the existing limit of 3.5 per cent. But concerns over their efficacy have been thrown into sharp relief by their role in an ongoing case against cruise operator Carnival Corporation, in which multiple EGCS failures contributed to significant air and water pollution violations.

With the clock ticking, international pressure is intensifying on the IMO to take meaningful steps towards meeting its own emission reduction targets. Focus will now move on to the organisation’s next session in November with hopes growing that recent calls for bolder action are finally taken on board.

Source: Businessgreen.com

future of shipping

Maritime black carbon emissions must decrease

The Clean Arctic Alliance has issued a call for international shipping operators and national governments to cut maritime black carbon emissions.

Black carbon particles are predominantly produced by ships burning heavy fuel oil; when black carbon is released by vessels operating in the Arctic region, the particles reduce the reflectivity of ice and snow – the resulting heat absorption accelerates the rate of warming across the Arctic. Black carbon emissions represent both the second largest contributor to global warming and a significant health hazard to humans. The Clean Arctic Alliance, a collective of non-profit bodies advocating an end to the use of heavy fuel oil (HFO), is calling on International Maritime Organisation (IMO) member states to agree on measures to ensure the reduction of maritime black carbon emissions at this year’s meeting of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee, which begins today.

Sian Prior, Lead Advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, said. “By cutting ship-sourced emissions of black carbon, IMO member states could take a quick and effective path to countering the current climate crisis; and minimise further impacts on the Arctic. We’re calling on IMO member states to champion a move away from using heavy fuel oils – shipping’s number one source of black carbon – in Arctic waters. With cleaner shipping fuels already available and innovation and ambition driving the global shipping industry towards lower emissions, IMO member states must move rapidly towards zero emission solutions.

“All eight Arctic countries made a commitment to demonstrate leadership on black carbon in 2015 – and it now seems that all except Canada are backing a move away from heavy fuel oil in the Arctic. As recent comments from Russia’s President Putin and Finland’s President Niinistö demonstrate, the political will for a HFO Free Arctic exists – now it is the time for IMO member states to turn this will into action, by moving urgently to reduce black carbon emissions and by backing the ban on the use and carriage of HFO in the Arctic, currently under development.”

Source: Governmenteuropa.eu

air pollution

Vessel emissions won’t be cut by sailing slower

Policy director of the UK Chamber of Shipping Anna Ziou has slammed French proposals to impose speed limits as a way to cut shipping emissions.

She claims it would give a “false impression” of the industry taking action. 

Ms Ziou’s objection follows an outcry from container lines following the French IMO delegation’s proposals becoming public last month. 

“To achieve a 50% cut in emissions, the shipping industry needs continued investment in green technologies that will allow ships to conduct their business through a range of low-carbon fuels, such as battery power, hydrogen fuel cells or even wind power,” said Ms Ziou. 

“Shipowners have already limited speeds considerably in the past decade and while these proposals are well-intentioned, slow-steaming as a low-carbon [plan] is just not good enough. 

“It will give a false impression that the industry is taking action, when in reality it will deliver no meaningful reduction in emissions, and the scale of ambition required for the industry to meet the 50% target should not be underestimated.” 

Ms Ziou noted that if selected, the plan could penalise companies developing and installing low-carbon technologies and could discourage “meaningful” attempts at cutting emissions. 

At best, she claimed, speed limits would delay any form of transition to low-carbon fuels and in so doing would store up greater costs for the industry. 

She added: “Speed reduction could result in supply chains using alternative modes of transport, such as road haulage, which would increase overall emissions. 

“In addition, ships may call at certain ports that are tidally constrained where a delay of just one hour could result in a knock-on delay of 12 hours to the vessel as it awaits the next tide, unnecessarily creating further emissions during the additional waiting time.” 

Despite the objections, it seems there is mounting support for the introduction of speed limits after chief executives from more than 100 shipping companies described climate change as “possibly the greatest challenge of our time” in a recent open letter to IMO member states. 

Source: The Loadstar

One Manato

$586m loss hits ONE’s parent carriers

Japanese merged carrier Ocean Network Express (ONE) recorded a net loss of $586m in its first year of operation, however it said it expected to move into the black in its second year. 

ONE, formed from the container businesses of K Line, MOL and NYK,was supposed to produce synergistic returns for its parents. Instead it has dragged down the P&L accounts of the trio, which announced annual results today.NYK, which holds a 38% equity stake in ONE, posted a massive group loss of ¥44.5bn ($400m) for the year, prompting the replacement of Tadaaki Naito as president. The company said  it resolved a change of its chairman, president and representative directors. The new president will be Hitoshi Nagasawa, currently executive vice president corporate officer.
And, like its compatriots, NYK also underestimated the cost of ending its legacy liner business. It said it suffered “higher than expected one-time costs required to terminate the container shipping business”, which included severance payments to agents and penalties incurred on returning surplus containerships to owners earlier than the charter party expiry dates.

K Line recorded a loss of ¥11bn ($99m) for the year, citing red ink incurred from its 31% stake in ONE as the primary reason.

Only MOL, which also has a 31% holding in ONE, managed to stay in the black for the year, achieving a positive result of ¥27bn ($240m), mainly attributable to good performances from its dry bulk and energy transport businesses.

But the carrier noted the business performance from ONE had resulted “in a significant deficit” from the sector.

The botched launch of ONE on 1 April last yearresulted in a significant loss of business and an estimated $400m impact on the bottom line.

Chief executive Jeremy Nixon explained to investors in November that management had “underestimated the initial launch resource requirement”, causing chaos on operations desks throughout the new organisation and obliging loyal Japanese trading house customers to book their containers with other carriers.

On the key Asia-Europe and transpacific tradelanes, it took ONE several months to regain customer confidence and thus restore load factors to acceptable levels.

For the full-year utilisation levels recovered to 87% and 88%, respectively for the Asia-US and Asia-Europe headhaul routes, having plunged below 70% in the first quarter.

Turnover in the first 12 months was $10.9bn, but ONE is seeking to improve its revenue in year two by 17% to $12.7bn and is targeting a profit of $85m.

ONE is more optimistic about growth than some of its peers and is projecting a 4% increase in demand.

“Profit is expected to gradually recover throughout H1, with improved lifting,” said ONE, adding it expected that liftings would be restored to the pre-integration levels of the three carriers during the period.

It said however that in the first three months of the calendar year, and the carrier’s Q4, trade had been “relatively weak” eastbound between Asia and the US “due in part to a backlash downturn from the earlier rush demand ahead of additional US tariffs on China”.

In regard to the Asia to Europe tradelane it said that although long-term contracts had improved, soft demand following the Chinese new year had resulted in a decline in spot rates.

ONE said that its action plan for profit improvement was to “establish an organisation that can tolerate market volatility” advancing the carrier from a period of “stabilisation” to a secondary stage of “reformation”.

The four parts of its 2019 action plan are: cargo portfolio optimisation; product rationalisation; an organisation restructure and an increase in the targeted $1bn cost saving synergies from the merger to 96% this year, from the 82% achieved in the first year.

Source: The Loadstar

global

UK shipping sector wants assurance on four areas of concern over IMO 2020

The International Maritime Organisation has been urged to clarify four areas of IMO 2020, as carriers scramble for compliance with the forthcoming low-sulphur fuel limit.

The “once-in-a-generation disruptor to shipping’s commercial environment” takes effect on 1 January 2020: a fuel sulphur content limit of 0.5%, down from 3.5% in some parts of the world, at some considerable cost to the industry.

Amid concern and the countdown, the UK Chamber of Shipping has called for the IMO to address four key areas: mitigation of safety issues linked to the switch; education on handling the fuel; reporting of compliance issues; and how the organisation will provide consistent global regulation.

The chamber said: “The new regulation will change the face of the shipping industry. It will have a positive impact on the environment and air quality, but could have a disruptive effect on operations if shipowners do not prepare effectively.”

While the IMO has yet to address issues surrounding fuel safety, it is working on guidelines to support the consistent implementation and to help state control enforce the regulation.

Furthermore, the UN body is reportedly also working on a fuel oil non-availability template (FONAR).

The UK Chamber says FONAR provides documentation to prove every effort to obtain compliant fuel had been pursued prior to a decision to bunker with non-compliant fuel.

But, it said, certain questions remained unanswered: “For instance, what happens to non-compliant fuel remaining onboard after a ship, having already provided a FONAR, arrives at a port where compliant fuel is available?”

Part of the problem facing the industry is uncertainty over how to comply with IMO 2020, with some suggesting scrubbers as the best option to mitigate the impact of the cap, some have pointed to LNG as an alternative, while others claim the clearest route to compliance is low-sulphur fuel.

A report by Panalpina suggests there has been an uptake among container lines looking to take the LNG route, with some hubs “racing” to develop LNG bunkering technology. It cites an order from CMA CGM for ten 15,000+ teu vessels, five to be fuelled by LNG and five fitted with scrubbers.

For forwarders like Panalpina, the focus will be on making sure it can maintain the best rates and provide customers with options they are happy to pay for, it said.

Global head of ocean freight Joerg Twachtmann added: “We have been developing a transparent and competitive pricing mechanism to cut the best deal for our customers.

“We now have a globally competitive bunker mechanism that will increase visibility for customers and ease the transition towards new fuel types to comply with the sulphur limit.”

For more information please go here: http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/GHG/Documents/2020%20sulphur%20limit%20FAQ%202019.pdf

Source: The Loadstar