Risk Assessment of Emission Abatement Technologies for Clean Shipping
The purpose of this study is recognizing and assessing the existing risks of SECA related investments of ship owners and the consideration of their risk attributes. Complying with the SECA regulations, maritime stakeholders have to choose among different abatement strategies, which are generally linked to high and risky investments. The paper focusses on the evaluation of scrubber technologies and their relationship to other abatement techniques.
Literature review reveals shortcomings in investment risk evaluation among the ship owners operating in emission control areas (ECA). The research fills this gap by presenting a comprehensive compilation of identified risks attributes in an analytical framework together with a risk assessment in the context of HFO and MGO fuel and scrubber related performance indicators comprising CAPEX and OPEX. The results in a classification framework categorize the investment risks and different elements of value at risk (VaR) as well as historical and parametric evaluation of risks. Besides that, this study contributes to new knowledge in the disciplines of green transport and shipping. For future research, the identified risk and investment must be tested in a real business case study and in different scenarios to measure and analyze its performance and efficiency.
The results of the paper are based on empiric activities, which were realized during 2017 in the frame of the EU project “EnviSuM”. The empiric measures comprise primary and secondary data analysis, focus group meetings and expert interviews with specialists from shipping sector in BSR.
KeywordsInvestment appraisal SECA regulation Payback period Value at risk Scrubber
- 1.IMO. Guidance on the application of regulation 13 of MARPOL annex VI tier III requirements to dual fuel and gas-fuelled engines. MEPC.1/Circ.854. London (2015)Google Scholar
- 4.Olaniyi, E.O., Viirmäe, M.: The economic impact of environmental regulations on a maritime fuel production company. Res. Econ. Bus. Central Eastern Europe 8(2) (2016)Google Scholar
- 5.Olaniyi, E.O., Prause, G., Boyesan, J.: Economic impact of SECA regulations on clean shipping in the BSR: First empiric results from EnviSuM project (2017)Google Scholar
- 8.Daduna, J.R., Prause, G.: The Baltic Sea as a maritime highway in international multimodal transport. In: Operations Research Proceedings 2015, pp. 189–194. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
- 11.Hämäläinen, E., Hilmola, O.P., Prause, G., Tolli, A.: Forecasting maritime logistics costs – Will the low oil price remain? In: Serry, A., Lévêque, L. (eds.) Le transport maritime à courte distance (Short-Sea Shipping), Devport 2016 Conference, pp. 19–34. EMS Geodif, Le Havre, France (2016)Google Scholar
- 12.Herbst, A.F.: Capital Asset Investment: Strategy, Tactics and Tools. Wiley, New York (2003)Google Scholar
- 15.Dowd, K.: Measuring Market Risk. Wiley, Hoboken (2007)Google Scholar
- 16.Jorion, P.: Value at Risk (2000)Google Scholar
- 18.Farid, J.A.: Risk Frameworks and Applications. Alchemy Technologies (2010)Google Scholar
- 19.Hendricks, D.: Evaluation of Value-At-Risk Models Using Historical Data (1996)Google Scholar