GLEAMERGY and the take-off of the LNG Bunkering Industry
“LNG bunkering” is a novel concept where ships engines will use Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) instead of liquid fuels (“bunkers”).
LNG tankers have been using LNG as a fuel since the very beginning, owing to the natural evaporation of the LNG transported as a liquid at minus 160°C and atmospheric pressure.
The concept of using LNG as a fuel on other ships such as ferries or cruise ships has emerged recently, prompted by :
- new IMO (International Maritime Organization) MARPOL VI emission regulations due to be effective in 2020
- attractive price of LNG compared with clean-burning liquid fuels.
2 A landmark deal for the LNG bunkering industry:
Real growth of the LNG bunkering was however hampered by the proverbial “chicken and egg” situation:
- Shipowners were conditioning their investing in LNG fuelled ships on a guarantee that LNG refueling infrastructure would be in place in their various Ports of call ….
- ….and Ports and Infrastructures Operators were conditioning their investing in LNG infrastructures on a guarantee from the Shipowners that these facilities would be used.
This “chicken and egg” situation is now being sorted out by moves such as CMA-CGM landmark decision that constitutes a world première:
- CMA-CGM, one of the leading containerships operators worldwide, orders 9 giant containerships ( 22.000 TEUs ) using LNG as a fuel
- CMA-CGM signs a long term ( 10 years – 300.000 t / year ) LNG supply contract with Total
The size and duration of this contract makes it a worldwide first in the LNG bunkering industry, and makes it possible for Total to build the required infrastructure, in this case an LNG bunkering ship suitable to refuel the CMA-CGM containerships.
Gleamergy was Advisor to CMA-CGM for this deal
Gleamergy : firstname.lastname@example.org – +33 6 32 54 25 97
Press Releases :
The people opposing production of shale gas in France state the “precautionary principle” (incorporated in the French Constitution), notably the potential environmental risks of this kind of production. But what if the contrary were cheap jerseys true? In up every decision to not do something a risk is taken: that of accepting the consequences of non-action.
In this case, the chain of reaction is the following:
- The cost of gas in the USA has dropped to $3-4/mmbtu learn following the cheap jerseys production of He shale gas, compared to a price of $11-12/mmbtu in USP Europe.
- Because the price of gas is so reasonable, American electricity producers are closing their coal-fired plants and replacing them by gas-fired plants; in the USA, gas is taking over coal in the production of electricity.
- The price of American coal wholesale jerseys China is dropping as the coal-fired plants close and it cheap jerseys is forced to look CEO for new opportunities cheap nfl jerseys elsewhere.
- Its new market is Europe, where gas prices are still high because there are no alternatives to importation as shale gas is not produced.
- In Europe, the electric companies are closing their gas-fired electric plants in favor of coal-fired plants: in Europe it is coal that is taking over from gas in the production of electricity.
- A coal-fired electric plant pollutes a lot more than a gas-fired plant: it generates 2 times more CO2 per kWh of electricity produced, as well as a whole lot of other pollutants (particles, SOx, NOx) whereas gas-fired particles only generate CO2 and water vapor.
- The European CO2 market is not working as the price of CO2 is still too low to highlight the environmental advantages of gas. Indeed, European competiveness would be affected elsewhere if this were not the case and the European Parliament recently demonstrated that is was conscious of this by refusing to drastically reduce its free CO2 emission allowances.
Therefore, it must be noted that the USA, who are certainly not champions in the fight against climate change, are very significantly reducing their CO2 emissions while Europeans, who are much more righteous in their declarations, are in fact considerably increasing their own emissions.
In conclusion, the decision not to explore shale gas in order to avoid potential risks (which are probably treatable) has led to an immediate and definite increase in air pollution in Europe. This decision is therefore contrary to the precautionary principle which would, in this case, imply that the necessary research was done and that a complete comparison between the disadvantages of electricity generation based on shale gas production and those of coal-fired electricity was made.