IMO 2020: What's Best for Maersk Not Best for All

Alisdair Pettigrew, Managing Director at BLUE Communications. Image Credit: BLUE Communications

Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean you have to. It's advice many a parent has given a child, and something experienced marine and energy consultant, Alisdair Pettigrew, Managing Director at BLUE Communications, says is equally applicable to the IMO 2020 compliance debate.

In May last year Maersk was one of the first major players to state its position on IMO 2020, telling Ship & Bunker it was dismissing the use of scrubbers in favour of using inherently compliant fuels when the global sulfur cap falls to 0.50% from January 1, 2020,

This position has been reiterated a number of times, most recently last month by CEO Soren Skou at Singapore Maritime Week 2018.

As Maersk is such a major player it has been suggested that other Shipowners have been unduly influenced to follow suit without fully considering all the available options.

"In our role as consultants spanning multiple technology companies, as well as NGO's and shipowners, we can see that choice and flexibility in deciding how to manage the 2020 transition is the prudent approach. From a Maersk perspective yes, using low sulfur fuel is the best solution for IMO 2020; economies of scale allow for cheaper fuel than competitors, de-risks advantage to ships with scrubbers if fuel spread is bigger than expected, saves expensive conversion to LNG, and puts onus on refiners / upstream," said Pettigrew.

"But, what is best for one is not best for all. Scrubbing will almost certainly work best for cruise and ferry, especially short sea, as well as short sea tankers and feeders. This is nevertheless a great attempt to 'own' this and position as thought leadership, but what is best for Maersk is not always what's best for market, however much clever positioning as supporting the whole market might be seen otherwise."

Alok Sharma, Global Head of Sales, Inatech, is another voice who believes the industry is not fully considering its options, telling Ship & Bunker last year he felt shipowners are just "sleepwalking into gasoil."