Stolt Tankers is calling for improvements to what it believes are unfair carbon efficiency measures affecting its chemical tankers.
The Norwegian-owned company is the latest to add its voice to the chorus of criticism of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII).
The shipowner said the measure is well-intentioned, but is causing headaches for the chemical tanker segment and may even prove counter-productive when it comes to reducing carbon emissions.
CII seems to be fairly straightforward and works for most of the main ship types, according to Maren Schroeder, managing director of Stolt Tankers.
“However, the sailing pattern of a chemical parcel tanker is far more complex compared to product or oil tankers, and this has not been accounted for in the current CII regulations,” she added.
On average, 10 to 12 different cargoes can be carried on more complex ships.
This means chemical parcel tankers may spend up to 55% of their time in port, shifting from terminal to terminal to load and discharge the various products.
Standard oil or product tankers usually fully discharge or load cargo in a single port visit, which amounts to just a few days.
Ballast voyages, sailing time, slow speed and optimising hull, propeller and engine conditions all help achieve a good rating, whereas long port stays have a negative effect.
Same ships, different ratings
“Even within our own fleet, if we compare the same size and specification of ships, the CII rating may vary,” added Schroeder.
“A ship that sails in the acid trade, for example — which has similar trade patterns to product tankers — will get a B rating, whereas its ‘twin’ that sails in the parcel trade, with multiple port transitions, will get a D rating,” she said.
The second issue is that CII does not include adjustments to data for events that are outside of an owners’ control, such as bad weather or a force majeure.
“Closure of the Suez Canal in 2021 affected global shipping lanes for a week, and the resulting port congestion issues continued for months afterwards,” explained the company’s business partner for sustainability and decarbonisation, Gabriel Poritz.
“The Port of Houston regularly shuts down its shipping channel due to dense fog and ships are still being quarantined due to Covid, especially in China. In all these cases, ship operators and owners can do nothing to prevent their CII ratings plummeting,” he added.
The industry is awaiting the IMO’s final wording of CII, despite the regulations coming into force in less than a month’s time.
But Schroeder believes the options for achieving compliance in the chemical tanker sector will remain limited.
“We can create unnecessary additional GHG emissions by swapping out our B and D rated ships annually and adding a ballast leg. Or we can use newer, more energy-efficient ships in trades with long port stays and older ones in trades with long voyages and ballast legs. We do the opposite now to reduce emissions,” she said.
Counter-productive
Schroeder added: “We welcome and do everything to support industry-wide carbon reduction measures and targets. But it cannot be right that to comply with the proposed CII regulations, we are forced to consume more fuel and emit more CO2.”
Stolt Tankers has a list of ways to improve the system, including clearly defining if biofuels can be used and how their emissions should be measured, for example, using a well-to-wake approach.
And the owner would like more consideration given to corrective actions in each market segment.
Stolt Tankers has also called for a definition of force majeure and other events that are outside the control of operators.
There should be a process for any ship affected to submit a request for an element of its reporting period to be omitted from its CII rating, the company argues.
