MnrAq

286 Third IMO GHG Study 2014
MGO, the CO 2 abatement measure will become relatively more cost-effective since MGO is more expensive
than HFO.
Table 57 gives the main compliance options of regulations 13 and 14 of MARPOL Annex VI, the main drivers
for the future fuel mix.
Table 57 – Main compliance options of regulations 13 and 14 of MARPOL Annex VI
Global 0.5% m/m
sulphur limit
X
SECA 0.1% m/m
sulphur limit
LSHFO
Distillates X X (MGO)
LNG X X X
HFO + Scrubber X X
Distillates + SCR/EGR X X
NECA Tier III NO x limit
Note that in an area that is established as a SECA and a NECA (with Tier III requirements), only two main
options seem to be viable currently – the use of LNG or the use of distillates together with SCR/EGR – because
it is unclear at the moment whether the combination of HFO, scrubbers and SCR/EGR is technically feasible.
As explained above, ship owners will probably choose the compliance option with the lowest relative costs
for the operational profile of their ships. The optimal compliance option will therefore most likely differ
according to ship type, ship size and the specific trades. Together with the fact that the technical compliance
options are still evolving and currently not produced at a large scale, making a cost estimate for 2050 very
uncertain, and the fact that the development of the LNG infrastructure and the LNG bunker prices are highly
uncertain, we decided not to derive fuel mix scenarios based on compliance cost estimations for 2050 but to
set up plausible fuel mix scenarios. We therefore differentiate two scenarios: a high LNG case, in which we
assume that extra ECAs will be established in the future, and a low LNG case, in which we assume that no
extra ECAs will be established in the future.
The share of LNG in the fuel mix in the two scenarios is derived from literature.
In DNV (2012), four scenarios are considered which differ with respect to economic growth, fuel prices
and environmental regulatory pressure and other characteristics like access to capital. In 2020, the highest
share of LNG amounts to 9% in a scenario with relatively high economic growth, relatively high HFO and
MGO prices but a very low LNG bunker price that is decoupled from the HFO price, with high pressure
from environmental regulation (ECAs in all coastal areas and a high carbon price) and high access to capital.
The scenario with the lowest share of LNG (2%) in 2020 is a scenario with relatively low economic growth,
moderate fuel prices where the LNG price is not being decoupled from the HFO price, again with high
pressure from environmental regulation (ECAs in all coastal areas and a carbon price that is lower than in the
high LNG case) and low/limited access to capital.
In Lloyd’s Register Marine and UCL Energy Institute (2014), the 2030 fuel mix for the main ship types (container
ships, dry bulk carriers, general cargo ships and tankers) is estimated. In one scenario, a relatively low share of
LNG is found for 2030 (4% in Competing Nations Scenario), whereas in the other two scenarios (Status Quo
and Global Commons) a share of around 11% is expected respectively. However, none of the three scenarios
considers an early (2020) switch to the global 0.5% sulphur requirement or the establishment of further ECAs,
which is why we take the LNG share to be higher in the high LNG case.