Yes my optimism is bolstered by the fact that there are very few choices in the running post 2020, and realistically from someone who has been at the sharp end for so many years, it's long overdue for the maritime industry to clean up their act.
On a slightly pessimistic side I would have liked to hear feedback from the last QFI AGM of a more optimistic stance regarding Maersks uptake post LONO instead of the reported " it's up to Maersk"
Another 4 months and all should be revealed, I'll happily settle for a KSA pilot contract in the meantime.
PH For sure ! We both agree there and I think we are making the same point in that ---discussions must be going on behind the scenes now because Q4 17 does not give the shipping company's OR QFI the time to lay down the planning to implement a bunker infrastructure to service Maersk let alone other customers , The shipping owners do not have the luxury of time, They need to have made there decisions by Q1 19 whether to retrofit scrubbers or decide to take on MGO on deep sea routes @ an obscene cost and / or order LNG newbuilds, Whatever ! They cannot afford to wait
My point is, what choices do they have? If they decide to go for scrubbers, they can continue to burn hfo till the cows come home in the knowledge that they can switch to MSAR when the infrastructure becomes available.. Then they will start saving dosh.
PH Good morning Whilst I find your last post encouraging , Do you really believe its applicable to Feb 17 ? The shipping companies have know the script a while now and what is required of them to make good the IMO criteria for 2020 regs, So I find it incomprehensible they will just be sitting on the backsides with fingers crossed hoping that QFI/Maersk,s project for MSAR is a sucsess and hope the bunkering infrastructure is in place then make a request for adoption , For sure ( they would be incompetent not to ) they will be sourcing alternative means to comply preferably @ the lowest cost possible " as we know shipping companies are well renowned for being tight arsssss " If MSAR is to be a credible alternative option for compliance then the cards must be on the table NOW with the data readily available for scrutiny , Not in Q4 17 with the MMu,s , groundwork , refinery still left to be brought onboard, That would only leave a 2 year window prior to enforcement , Are shipping companies gonna hang around hoping that QFI/Akzo Nobel/Maersk/ CEPSA get there act together for worldwide distribution I would hope they would , But reality dictates otherwise
Is no news about LONO good news? I'm presuming like most others I think that it is going well, otherwise there would need to have been an RNS explaining any problems.
Somebody commented on one of the other boards that news is bound to leak purely due to the number of organisations involved, which would cause a reaction with the SP. Yet there has been very little change in the SP for some time, other than the quick spike that seems to have been caused by the work done by Rob79 in revealing that an ex-Maersk employee had been very positive about the trial in his linkedin profile!
So either there is no leak as to progress with LONO, or if there has been and the trial is going well, it hasn't really affected the SP. If there was a leak that it was going badly I'm sure the SP would have plummeted.
Could the lack of SP movement be down to the market waiting for news of actual commercial deals being completed, i.e., scepticism that even with successful LONO there is significant doubt that a deal will be done with Maersk or anyone else, at least in the short term?
Very interested to hear views while waiting in anticipation for news.
Very noticeable to me is that no large cargo operator has played it’s hand yet with regards as to what it is doing for 2020 which was decided upon in October, four months ago now.
Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of another cargo operator outside Maersk’s world.. Their choices are slim as to what to do to prepare for the 2020 rules on Sulphur emissions worldwide. Basically they have two choices currently:
1: To carry on as they are, burning HFO but fitting scrubbers at a quite hefty capital expense that they cannot recoup without putting up freight rates. Their creditors / shareholders won’t be happy.
2. To plan to burn Ultra Low Sulphur Fuel post 2020, Much higher fuel costs guaranteed that they will have to pass on to the customer. Their creditors / shareholders won’t be happy.
Now, there is an Elephant in the room (I call it a Game Changer!) Do a Google search for ‘Maersk Testing new Fuel’ At least 50% of relevant hits on the first page are MSAR specific, so, it’s no secret!
There could be far more people waiting for the outcome of LONO than we think. An operational test that will have been 100% thorough in its application and detail. Remember that Maersk will have been also fine tuning and tweaking it’s patent applied emulsion fuel delivery system for the first time in an operational environment, (this may explain why MSAR hasn’t been used 100% of the available time in the early part of the LONO).
So, once LONO is granted, the other operators will see a long term option to ensure payback for the outlay cost of fitting scrubbers and cost saving and reducing their environmental impact. Their creditors / shareholders WILL be happy!
Maybe, just maybe, things could move much quicker than we think post LONO granted, what Global Oil major then wouldn’t want to be in on the action!
Thanks DP Yes I recall Maersk being on there high horse about who,s got the biggest ! So Wartsila have total remote access to the Engine and /or ECR through internet connection to Finland, very much like NOV/Macgregors can access the crane data , mhhh so no skeletons there then !
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.