How To Reduce Fuel Consumption

Merenkulun haasteet ja mahdollisuudet

tulevassa kustannusympäristössä

Mersin Beirut Haifa Limassol Ashdod Alexandria Valencia Piraeus Wallhamn Aarhus LübeckRostock Amsterdam Travemünde St. Petersburg Turku Kotka Helsinki Antwerp Hull Immingham Southampton Bilbao Setubal Gdynia Tunis Tripoli Latakia Göteborg Malmö Sassnitz Kapellskär Savona Venice Yenikoy Gemlik Salerno Civitaveccia Monfalcone Koper Cagliari Palermo Trapani Catania Malta Livorno Ravenna Hamburg Flushing Cork Liverpool Bristol Tilbury Esbjerg Tartus Sheerness

Baltic Sea

North Sea

Russia

Mediterranean Sea

Grimaldi Group - European Network

Ventspils

Finnlines Main Network

SPAIN Bilbao Bay of Biscay Hull Antwerp Rostock Amsterdam Travemünde Gdynia Sassnitz Lübeck St. Petersburg North Sea Aarhus Kapellskär Malmö Kotka Rauma Helsinki Naantali Turku Hanko Baltic Sea FRANCE SPAIN UK POLAND BELARUS GERMANY BELGIUM LITHUANIA LATVIA ESTONIA RUSSIA SWEDEN NORWAY FINLAND

Finnlines Ro-ro Lines

Finland

↔ Southern Baltic

Finland

↔ Scandinavia

Finland

↔ North Sea, UK and Continent

Finland

↔ Biscay

HansaLink

Helsinki

↔ Travemünde

FinnLink

Naantali

↔

Kapellskär

NordöLink

Malmö

↔

Travemünde

TransRussiaExpress

Lübeck

↔

St. Petersburg

Transshipments to

Mediterranean

,

Atlantic Coast N & S America,

West-Africa

Immingham

Ventspils

Zeebrugge

Key Figures Finnlines Group

2009

2010

2011

Group Turnover (in million EUR)

494.4

561.1

605,2

Average number of people employed

_{2 050}

_{2 096}

_{2 076}

•

Average number of employees ashore

_{1 086}

_{1 141}

_{1 072}

•

Average number of people at sea

₉₆₄

₉₅₄

_{1 004}

Fleet

•

Average number of vessels operated

₃₃

₂₄

₂₆

•

Number of Finnlines’ owned vessels

₁₈

₁₉

₂₅

•

Average age of Finnlines’ own fleet (years)

₉

₉

₁₀

•

Total capacity of the fleet in lanemeters

_{77 000}

_{77 000}

_{70 000}

Cargo volumes transported:

•

Units

_{596 000}

_{629 000}

_{641 000}

•

Cars (not including cars of passengers)

_{38 000}

_{56 000}

_{72 000}

•

Tons of freight not possible to be measured by the unit

2 001 000

2 039 000

2 239 000

2013 -... 2025: Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for CO2 reduction

• As from 1.1.2013 (not yet applied for roro and ropax vessels).

• Subsidy/penalty systems possible for low score ESI/CSI/EEDI units

2015 onward : Restriction of sulphur (SOx) emissions;

• 0,1 % Sulphur content in SECA Areas as from 1.1.2015

• Question of exemptions on specific routes and vessels is still open

2014 ... 2016: Ballast Water Convention (subject to ratification rate)

• Ratification/enforcement expected to be reached during 2013

• After 2014...2016 (dependent on the size of the vessel) the treatment

plants are planned to become mandatory

• US additional restrictions possible

• Exceptions for transfers within closed sea under study

2016 or later: NOx

• Tier II applies to vessels keel laid after 2011.

• Tier III : Baltic Sea as a special emission control area for Nox: for new

vessels keel laid 2016 or later NOx emissions reduced by 80%

2020 and later: Black Carbon, BC

• Technology not yet feasible, timetable and measures uncertain

Environmental Requirements for Maritime Transports

Tier II:

+3% fuel costs

Tier III: new engines +……/ship

Scrubber & retrofits: running & maintenance + 2 MEUR / ship

or

Switch to gasoil:

+50% fuel costs

Depending on IMO EEDI decision and authorities’ policies (e.g. ports)

• abt 0,6 MEUR / ship + running

• United States 0,8 MEUR / ship? • Eventual exception for closed sea: 0 EUR

Depending on eventual IMO decision

Costs

Regulation

Regulation

Effect on costs

Timeframe

SOx;

+ 30...+ 50% (MKK)

2015 ... 2020 onwards

Ballast Water Convention + 10... + 15%? (FL own est) 2014 ... 2016 onwards

Nox, new vessels

+ 3...+5 % (MKK)

2016 or later

CO

2

+ 5... +23% (LVM)

2020 or later

effect through emission trading scheme or bunker tax, still open

Effects to Maritime Transport Costs in Finnish Foreign Trade

MKK = University of Turku, Centre for Maritime Studies

LVM = Ministry of Transport and Communication, Finland

The biggest challenge in short sea shipping is looming ahead: as from 1.1.2015

IMO/Annex VI of the Marpol 73/78 Convention max sulphur limit 0,1% within ECA

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

International (and the rest of EU)

If feasible

English channel, North Sea & Baltic Sea

0,1% SOx regulations

Actions for reducing cost pressure on the industry

Shipping

companies

Shippers

ECA

states

• Flexible tonnage for

changing flows

• Reducing fuel incidence

by optimizing occupation

rate

• Young/energy efficent

tonnage, tech

investments

• Operative fuel saving

measures (e.g. slow

steaming)

• Experience/presence in

EU and State

Associations

• Concentrate flows

• Select a few big shipping partners

with flexible / efficient tonnage

Imbalance in export and import volumes and different commodity types

challenges tonnage-type development in short sea shipping liner services

Over 50% of the world’s ro-ro tonnage has been built over 20 years ago.

After 2002 newbuildings mainly 3000+ lanemetres have been built.

> 20

years old

< 20

years old

Ro-ro tonnage age profile

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Lanemetre L a n e me tre 3000-2500-3000 2000-2500 1500-2000 1000-1500 500-1000

Finnlines fleet ’s

average age is now

under

Finnlines New Ro-ro Tonnage for General Cargo

The new designs have hoistable car decks on two levels in the main deck and

an internal ramp to weather deck. The clearance on the main deck is

Summary

International and EU legislation has big influence on the competitiveness of the

maritime transports in the future. Industry’s own measures are heavily dependent

on the scope and scheduling of the regulating measures, the critical factors

being, e.g:

• Availability of suitable and flexible tonnage for different cargo types

• Age of tonnage – reliability and ecology

• Cargo flow balance – combination of flows

• Ownership of tonnage, risk bearing ability

• Implementation of operative measures to save fuel

• Investments in technologies to reduce emissions from ships

1) Reduce the speed in the Baltic to max. 18 knots

=> impact in Sulphur, CO2, + other emissions when reducing from abt. 22 knots

to abt. 18-19 knots = -40...50 %

=> Less cost, lower Bunker cost by abt. -40...50 %

2) Reduce the Sulphur % from current 1 % in the Baltic to 0,5 %

=> Impact on the rates abt. + 5...10 %

OUTCOME OF THIS MODEL:

=> Lower emission for the environment

=> NO cost impact

=> Increase of transit times only few hours

SLOW STEAMING