MnrAq

Recommendations

Info

Inventories of CO2 emissions from international shipping 2007–2012 61 Figure 43: OECD versus non-OECD data collection system IEA acknowledges that challenges remain in collecting international marine bunkers data worldwide; however, compared to other sources, the IEA database seems consistent across the years and is regulary updated. According to Morel (2013), the revisions in the IEA international marine bunkers database have improved its quality. The database published in 2012 covers 139 individual countries compared to the 137 of the 2007 database. Of these 139 countries, the 54 countries that represent 80% of the total sale have used official energy statistics. Another six countries, representing 14% of the total sale, have used other sources, such as port authorities, oil companies and data provided by FACTS Global Energy (http://www.fgenergy.com). Lastly, in 2012 edition, data have been estimated for 33 countries that represent only 6% of the total sale, considering, for example, residual GDP growth and marine traffic growth (Morel, 2013). In addition to directly reported IEA marine fuel statistics, the consortium reviewed the energy balances of each fuel to inform the uncertainty analysis for top-down marine fuel consumption in Section 1.5. This provides QA/QC and enables an estimate of potential uncertainty around reported fuel sales for the marine sector (domestic and international). For example, corroborating information about the potential for under- or overreporting international marine bunkers includes: 1 From Energy Statistics for Non-OECD Countries, IEA, 2009 edition: “For a given product, imports and exports may not sum up to zero at the world level for a number of reasons. Fuels may be classified differently (i.e. residual fuel oil exports may be reported as refinery feedstocks by the importing country; NGL exports may be reported as LPG by the importing country, etc.). Other possible reasons include discrepancies in conversion factors, inclusion of international marine bunkers in exports, timing differences, data reported on a fiscal year basis instead of calendar year for certain countries, and underreporting of imports and exports for fiscal reasons.” 2 From the OECD Factbook 2013: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics (“Energy supply”, page 108) and the Factbook website: “Data quality is not homogeneous for all countries and regions. In some countries, data are based on secondary sources, and where incomplete or unavailable, the IEA has made estimates. In general, data are likely to be more accurate for production and trade than for international bunkers or stock changes. Moreover, statistics for biofuels and waste are less accurate than those for traditional commercial energy data.” In summary, IEA and OECD identify specific types of error in energy data that involve marine bunkers. The first is allocation or classification error involving imports, exports and marine bunker statistics. The second is country-to-country differences in data quality, specifically related to poor accuracy for international bunkers or stock changes. These insights helped inform the consortium’s direct QA/QC and uncertainty efforts.
62 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 1.4.2 Top-down QA/QC efforts specific to this study This study independently confirmed the statistical balances of IEA energy statistics on both global and large regional scales. Specifically, the calculation of statistical difference at the national and regional levels was verified and discrepancy between imports and exports reported by IEA was confirmed. Second, as in the Second IMO GHG Study 2009, the consortium researched other international energy data providers to understand whether international marine bunker records were considered to be similar to or different from IEA statistics. This included research into data quality studies for non-IEA energy statistics. Comparisons with EIA top-down statistics and other resources The following resources were evaluated for a) their similarity to IEA statistics and b) complementary data quality investigations. The consortium evaluated EIA international marine bunker fuel oil data for 2007–2010 (IEA did not provide more recent data than 2010 during the period in which this study was conducted). Moreover, the EIA statistics available on the United States Department of Energy website did not provide data for gas diesel international marine bunkers, nor break down domestic marine fuel consumption, nor identify fishing vessel consumption. These data may be available from the EIA; however, given that additional EIA data provide limited opportunities to improve QA/QC in top-down estimates, these data were not pursued. Table 24 and Figure 44 illustrate continued discrepancies in statistical reporting between IEA and EIA, similar to those documented in the Second IMO GHG Study 2009. Namely, the IEA data report consistently greater fuel oil consumption than the EIA data for international marine bunkers. This is indicated in Figure 45 by the scatter plot for the period 2000–2010, the regression line and the confidence interval of the best-fit line. Table 24 – Comparison of fuel sales data between IEA and EIA in international shipping (million tonnes) Fuel oil statistics Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 International marine bunkers IEA 174.1 177.0 165.9 178.9 177.9 EIA 155.3 158.8 160.9 171.2 Percentage difference 11% 10% 3% 4% Figure 44: Comparison of IEA and EIA international marine bunker fuel oil statistics
Page 1 and 2:
Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014
Page 3 and 4:
Published in 2015 by the internatio
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Page Preface .............
Page 8 and 9:
vii 3.1.2 Outline .............
Page 10:
ix Fleet productivity projectio
Page 13 and 14:
xii Third IMO GHG Study 2014 The re
Page 15 and 16:
xiv Third IMO GHG Study 2014 MEPC m
Page 18 and 19:
List of figures Page Figure 1: Bott
Page 20 and 21:
List of figures xix Page Figure 46:
Page 22 and 23:
List of figures xxi Annex Figures P
Page 24:
List of figures xxiii Figure 45: Ca
Page 27 and 28:
xxvi Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Page
Page 29 and 30:
xxviii Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Tab
Page 32 and 33:
Executive Summary Key findings from
Page 34 and 35:
Executive Summary 3 rigorous testin
Page 36 and 37:
Executive Summary 5 emissions than
Page 38 and 39:
Executive Summary 7 Figure 2 shows
Page 40 and 41:
Executive Summary 9 because, in con
Page 42 and 43: Executive Summary 11 Particular car
Page 44 and 45: Executive Summary 13 larger ship si
Page 46 and 47: Executive Summary 15 Summary of Sec
Page 48 and 49: Executive Summary 17 a. CO 2 b. CH
Page 50 and 51: Executive Summary 19 Demand for coa
Page 52 and 53: Executive Summary 21 Figure 15 show
Page 54 and 55: Executive Summary 23 • ships obse
Page 56 and 57: Executive Summary 25 b Noon report
Page 58 and 59: 1 Inventories of CO 2 emissions fro
Page 60 and 61: Inventories of CO2 emissions from i
Page 124: Inventories of CO2 emissions from i
Page 127 and 128: 96 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Emissio
Page 129 and 130: 98 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Method
Page 131 and 132: 100 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Table
Page 133 and 134: 102 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Year T
Page 135 and 136: 104 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 2.2.7
Page 137 and 138: 106 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 This s
Page 139 and 140: 108 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 N 2 O
Page 141 and 142: 110 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Table
Page 143 and 144:
112 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Figure
Page 145 and 146:
114 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Table
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
118 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 shippi
Page 151 and 152:
120 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 • SO
Page 153 and 154:
122 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 a) CO
Page 155 and 156:
Page 158 and 159:
3 Scenarios for shipping emissions
Page 160 and 161:
Scenarios for shipping emissions 20
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Bibliography for Main Report and An
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182:
Page 185 and 186:
154 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 IHSF o
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
160 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Pre-pr
Page 193 and 194:
162 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 There
Page 195 and 196:
164 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Follow
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
168 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 data s
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
172 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Ship c
Page 205 and 206:
174 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 experi
Page 207 and 208:
176 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 The mo
Page 209 and 210:
178 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 sfc =
Page 211 and 212:
180 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 2011 D
Page 213 and 214:
182 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Ship t
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
202 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Every
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
208 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 time s
Page 241 and 242:
210 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 2011
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 260 and 261:
Annex 4 Details for Section 1.5.1:
Page 262 and 263:
Annex 4 231 IEA sources of uncertai
Page 264 and 265:
Annex 4 233 Transfers category repo
Page 266 and 267:
Annex 4 235 Figure 24: Time series
Page 268 and 269:
Annex 5 Details for Section 1.5.2:
Page 270 and 271:
Annex 5 239 3 The uncertainty in es
Page 272 and 273:
Annex 5 241 data has been used. The
Page 274 and 275:
Annex 5 243 temporal coverage QA/QC
Page 276 and 277:
Annex 5 245 uncertainties (standard
Page 278 and 279:
Annex 6 Details for Section 2: othe
Page 280 and 281:
Table 22 - Baseline emissions facto
Page 282 and 283:
Annex 6 251 Table 24 - EF-related S
Page 284:
Annex 6 253 Table 31 - PM FCFs - MG
Page 287 and 288:
256 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Analys
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
260 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 that s
Page 293 and 294:
262 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Contai
Page 295 and 296:
264 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Regard
Page 297 and 298:
266 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 LNG ma
Page 299 and 300:
268 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 • Th
Page 301 and 302:
270 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 ULCCs
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
274 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 potent
Page 307 and 308:
276 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Size c
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
280 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Year o
Page 313 and 314:
282 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Johnso
Page 315 and 316:
284 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 The re
Page 317 and 318:
286 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 MGO, t
Page 319 and 320:
288 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 CH 4 M
Page 321 and 322:
290 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 • As
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
show all

MnrAq

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?