EU urged to put shipping recovery ahead of green deal

Spanish Market: Emissions, Oil products
03/04/20

The European Community Shipowners' Associations (ECSA) said the shipping industry has to recover from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic before it can commit to a green deal.

ECSA secretary general Martin Dorsman urged the European Commission to assess the impact of the pandemic on the shipping industry and "work on a recovery plan, before stating that the European green deal is keeping to its deadline no matter what".

The green deal is a plan to decarbonise the EU economy by 2050 through a raft of measures, including carbon market reforms, changes to energy taxation and carbon pricing measures at the EU border. The commission is considering widening the European carbon trading market to cover shipping and road transport.

The EU published a climate law proposal on 4 March as a step towards making the EU's target of zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 legally binding.

Shipping can be decarbonised by developing more fuel-efficient engines and vessels, and using low-carbon marine fuels such as hydrogen fuel cells, methanol, batteries and ammonia.

Dorsman said it is "impossible for the industry to continue the process of greening the fleet, which was picking up speed before the [coronavirus] pandemic set in, should this continue".

ECSA welcomed the European Green Deal when it was unveiled by the commission in December.

"Through innovation and deployment, we show the rest of the world shipping can be highly competitive while moving towards zero emissions," Dorsman said then.

But as the coronavirus pandemic has curbed shipping demand and particularly passenger ship operations in recent weeks, ECSA said it is unrealistic that the shipping industry will play a part in the move towards a green deal before they have recovered "to sustainable levels of activity".

Many shipping companies "are facing liquidity issues and a sharp decrease in financing options, and a drop in cargo volumes is most likely to happen in the coming months", Dorsman said.

Passenger shipping was hit by the travel bans immediately, but demand for container and bulk shipping has also been severely reduced.

European shipowners own 40pc of the global fleet, and shipping makes up 76pc of the EU's external trade and 32pc of its internal trade, according to ECSA.

By Erik Hoffmann

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

15/04/25

Australia's carbon credit issuances nearly match demand

Sydney, 15 April (Argus) — Demand for Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) rose almost six-fold in the first compliance year of Australia's reformed safeguard mechanism, although total carbon unit surrenders were nearly matched by issuances of the new safeguard mechanism credits (SMCs). A total of 138 facilities out of 219 covered under the scheme surrendered 7.05mn ACCUs and 1.38mn SMCs for the July 2023-June 2024 financial year to manage their excess emissions, up sharply from 1.22mn units a year earlier, according to data released by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) on 15 April. But the combined 8.44mn units surrendered were nearly matched by 8.3mn of SMC issuances to 63 facilities — of which almost 7mn will be now held for future compliance, potentially weighing on market sentiment around ACCUs in the short to medium term. The final SMC issuances for 2023-24 were below the maximum potential of 9.2mn first disclosed by the Climate Change Authority in November 2024. But that was significantly higher than initially forecast and impacted ACCU spot prices in the following months . Some market participants had been expecting most of the SMCs to have been issued to coal miners, who benefitted from a change in the method used to estimate fugitive methane emissions , but oil and gas extraction accounted for just as many issuances as coal mining, each with around 3.07mn units, or 37pc of the total, CER data released on 15 April. Metal ore mining and processing, including ferrous, non-ferrous and precious metals, accounted for around 13pc of all issuances, followed by chemicals and other industries. Biggest SMC issuances and surrenders Shell has emerged as the company that received the largest number of SMCs at a facility level, with its Prelude floating LNG (FLNG) terminal issued with 1.07mn units as it reported scope 1 emissions of 1.85mn t of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) for a baseline of 2.93mn t of CO2e. UK-South African firm Anglo American received a higher combined volume of 1.64mn SMCs, of which 1.02mn came from its Capcoal coal mine and 622,997 from its Grosvenor coal mine in Queensland. Chevron received 622,554 SMCs across its Gorgon and Wheatstone operations, while Australian independent Santos was issued 205,500 units across four facilities ( see table ). Meanwhile, SMC surrenders were registered across 27 facilities. Coal miners in New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland made the bulk of these surrenders at 991,857 units, including Anglo American and Australian mining company Stanmore Resources ( see table ). Net emissions fall Baselines were reset under the reformed safeguard mechanism, which applies to facilities that emit more than 100,000t of CO2e in a compliance year across several sectors, and now face a 4.9pc/yr decline rate until 2029-30 . Scope 1 emissions covered under the scheme fell from 138.7mn t of CO2e in 2022-23 to approximately 136mn t of CO2e in 2023-24, representing 31pc Australia's total emissions in that year. Net safeguard emissions fell to 127.8mn t of CO2e from 137.9mn t of CO2e a year earlier following the surrender of ACCUs and SMCs. The total liability in 2023-24 reached around 9.2mn t of CO2e across 142 facilities, of which around 0.8mn t CO2e remained in an excess situation on 1 April 2025, according to the CER. The 0.8mn t of CO2e is from five facilities under the operational control of three companies, two of which are in voluntary administration. The third company, Australian independent Fitzroy, failed to manage an excess of 583,079t of CO2e for its Ironbark No. 1 and Carborough Downs Coal Mine facilities for 2023-24. It has entered an enforceable undertaking with the CER and has committed to surrender the required units, start feasibility studies to investigate carbon abatement opportunities at the two facilities, and ensure neither is in an excess emissions situation for the 2024-25 year on 1 April 2026. By Juan Weik Australia's SMC issuances 2023-24 t CO2e Facility Operator Sector SMCs issued FLNG SHELL AUSTRALIA Oil and gas extraction 1,077,261 Capcoal Mine ANGLO COAL (CAPCOAL MANAGEMENT) Coal mining 1,022,648 Ichthys LNG Project INPEX Operations Australia Oil and gas extraction 768,900 Grosvenor Mine ANGLO COAL (MORANBAH NORTH MANAGEMENT) Coal mining 622,997 Gudai-Darri Mine Mount Bruce Mining Metal ore mining 474,391 Kooragang Island ORICA AUSTRALIA Other basic chemical product 430,751 Gorgon Operations CHEVRON AUSTRALIA Oil and gas extraction 388,803 Carmichael Coal Mine Adani Mining Coal mining 351,232 APN01 Appin Colliery - ICH ENDEAVOUR COAL Coal mining 320,457 TAHMOOR COAL MINE TAHMOOR COAL Coal mining 269,773 Wheatstone Operations CHEVRON AUSTRALIA Oil and gas extraction 233,751 Port Kembla Steelworks BLUESCOPE STEEL (AIS) Basic ferrous metal 232,088 Myuna Colliery CENTENNIAL MYUNA Coal mining 155,043 Ravenswood Mine RAVENSWOOD GOLD Metal ore mining 132,501 Bulga Coal Complex BULGA COAL MANAGEMENT Coal mining 128,269 WOR01 South32 Worsley Alumina Basic non-ferrous metal 117,189 Newman Power Station APA TRANSMISSION (ROY HILL) Electricity generation 114,505 Condabri Talinga Orana ORIGIN ENERGY UPSTREAM OPERATOR Oil and gas extraction 104,047 Wambo Coal Mine WAMBO COAL Coal mining 82,414 Spring Gully Reedy Creek Combabula ORIGIN ENERGY UPSTREAM OPERATOR Oil and gas extraction 81,761 Fairview Santos Oil and gas extraction 74,850 Pluto LNG Woodside Burrup Oil and gas extraction 73,370 Pinjarra Alumina Refinery Alcoa of Australia Basic non-ferrous metal 70,123 Virgin Australia National Transport VIRGIN AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS Air and space transport 67,430 CEM NSW Berrima Maldon Boral Cement, lime, plaster and concrete 63,844 Moranbah Incitec Pivot Other basic chemical product 63,529 CSBP Kwinana Facility CSBP Fertiliser and pesticide 62,865 Curtis Island GLNG Plant GLNG OPERATIONS Oil and gas extraction 60,273 Arcadia Santos Oil and gas extraction 57,996 Nowra Plant Shoalhaven Starches Grain mill and cereal product 52,520 Ningaloo Vision FPSO Santos Oil and gas extraction 51,109 Solomon Power Station FMG SOLOMON Electricity generation 49,749 QGC Upstream QGC PTY Oil and gas extraction 47,428 King of the Hills GREENSTONE RESOURCES (WA) Metal ore mining 40,725 Arrow Surat Operations Arrow Energy Holdings Oil and gas extraction 37,987 Birkenhead Operations ADBRI Cement, lime, plaster and concrete 29,000 Moorvale Coal Mine PEABODY ENERGY AUSTRALIA Coal mining 26,921 Roma Hub Santos Oil and gas extraction 21,545 Clermont Coal Operations Clermont Coal Operations Coal mining 21,521 V/Line V/Line Corporation Rail passenger transport 20,960 Lake Vermont Mine THIESS Coal mining 19,541 NKS01 Nickel West Kalgoorlie BHP NICKEL WEST Basic non-ferrous metal 17,666 Duketon South Operations Regis Resources Metal ore mining 16,319 Daunia Mine BM Alliance Coal Operations Coal mining 15,936 Fisherman's Landing CEMENT AUSTRALIA (QUEENSLAND) Cement, lime, plaster and concrete 15,005 Cockburn Operations ADBRI Cement, lime, plaster and concrete 14,615 Boyne Smelters Limited RIO TINTO ALUMINIUM Basic non-ferrous metal 9,745 Mangoola MANGOOLA COAL OPERATIONS Coal mining 9,018 Liberty Bell Bay Liberty Bell Bay Basic ferrous metal 8,762 Port Latta Pelletising Plant GRANGE RESOURCES (TASMANIA) Basic ferrous product 7,519 Australian Gas Networks (Vic) Australian Gas Networks Holding Gas supply 7,487 Opal Australian Paper Maryvale Mill PAPER AUSTRALIA Pulp, paper and paperboard 7,041 Moolarben Coal Mine MOOLARBEN COAL OPERATIONS Coal mining 4,609 Jax Mine Jax Coal Coal mining 4,082 Baralaba Coal Mine BARALABA COAL COMPANY Coal mining 3,841 CTC WA Facility CENTURION TRANSPORT CO. Road freight transport 3,527 Daunia Mine WHITEHAVEN DAUNIA Coal mining 3,353 South West Queensland Pipeline APA (SWQP) Pipeline and other transport 2,633 Queensland Nitrates Ammonium Nitrate Plant Queensland Nitrates Basic chemical manufacturing 2,382 Mount Pleasant Operations MACH Energy Australia Coal mining 2,304 Dongara Operations ADBRI Cement, lime, plaster and concrete 2,264 Collinsville Mine NC COAL COMPANY Coal mining 1,899 Bell Bay Smelter RIO TINTO ALUMINIUM (BELL BAY) Basic non-ferrous metal 1,770 Source: CER Australia's SMC surrenders 2023-24 t CO2e Facility Operator Sector ACCUs surrendered SMCs surrendered DEN01 Dendrobium Coal Coal mining 40,000 196,075 United Coal Mine UNITED COLLIERIES Coal mining 52,973 190,000 Moranbah North Mine ANGLO COAL (MORANBAH NORTH MANAGEMENT) Coal mining 0 183,699 Mandalong Mine CENTENNIAL MANDALONG Coal mining 32,254 155,043 South Walker Creek STANMORE RESOURCES Coal mining 36,538 132,501 Hunter Valley Operations mine HV OPERATIONS Coal mining 60,000 85,876 APLNG Facility CONOCOPHILLIPS AUSTRALIA OPERATIONS Oil and gas extraction 0 85,774 Murrin Murrin Operations MURRIN MURRIN OPERATIONS Metal ore mining 0 45,593 Kwinana Pigment Plant Tronox Management Basic chemical 0 40,869 Kwinana Alumina Refinery Alcoa of Australia Basic non-ferrous metal 52,729 37,849 Dawson Mine ANGLO COAL (DAWSON MANAGEMENT) Coal mining 24,056 28,862 Wagerup Alumina Refinery Alcoa of Australia Basic non-ferrous metal 37,271 26,498 Phosphate Hill Incitec Pivot Fertiliser and pesticide 0 25,168 Chandala Processing Plant Tronox Management Basic chemical 0 23,215 Cloudbreak Mine CHICHESTER METALS Metal ore mining 8,411 19,262 Solomon Mine FMG SOLOMON Metal ore mining 42,926 19,178 NKW01 Nickel West Kwinana Facility BHP NICKEL WEST Basic non-ferrous metal 62,720 17,666 Coppabella Coal Mine PEABODY ENERGY AUSTRALIA PCI Coal mining 0 15,719 Qenos Altona Manufacturing QENOS Basic chemical 0 13,601 Rail THE PILBARA INFRASTRUCTURE Rail freight transport 4,002 9,163 Angaston Operations ADBRI Cement, lime, plaster and concrete 0 8,968 Western Port Works BlueScope Steel Basic ferrous metal 0 7,642 Otway BEACH ENERGY Oil and gas extraction 22,868 6,935 Multinet Network and South Gippsland Pipeline MULTINET GAS (DB NO. 2) Gas supply 0 4,545 Drake Mine Drake Mine Management Coal mining 2,244 4,082 Iron Bridge Mine IB Operations Metal ore mining 2,414 2,146 Railton CEMENT AUSTRALIA (GOLIATH) Cement, lime, plaster and concrete 0 681 Source: CER Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Funding cuts could delay US river lock work: Correction

14/04/25

Funding cuts could delay US river lock work: Correction

Corrects lock locations in paragraph 5. Houston, 14 April (Argus) — The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) will have to choose between various lock reconstruction and waterway projects for its annual construction plan after its funding was cut earlier this year. Last year Congress allowed the Corps to use $800mn from unspent infrastructure funds for other waterways projects. But when Congress passed a continuing resolutions for this year's budget they effectively removed that $800mn from what was a $2.6bn annual budget for lock reconstruction and waterways projects. This means a construction plan that must be sent to Congress by 14 May can only include $1.8bn in spending. No specific projects were allocated funding by Congress, allowing the Corps the final say on what projects it pursues under the new budget. River industry trade group Waterways Council said its top priority is for the Corps to provide a combined $205mn for work at the Montgomery lock in Pennsylvania on the Ohio River and Chickamauga lock in Tennessee on the Tennessee River since they are the nearest to completion and could become more expensive if further delayed. There are seven active navigation construction projects expected to take precedent, including the following: the Chickamauga and Kentucky Locks on the Tennessee River; Locks 2-4 on the Monongahela River; the Three Rivers project on the Arkansas River; the LaGrange Lock on the Illinois River; Lock 25 on the Mississippi River; and the Montgomery Lock on the Ohio River. There are three other locks in Texas, Pennsylvania and Illinois that are in the active design phase (see map) . By Meghan Yoyotte Corps active construction projects 2025 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

IMO GHG pricing not yet Paris deal-aligned: EU

14/04/25

IMO GHG pricing not yet Paris deal-aligned: EU

Brussels, 14 April (Argus) — The International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism "does not yet ensure the sector's full contribution to achieving the Paris Agreement goals", the European Commission has said. "Does it have everything for everybody? For sure, it doesn't," said Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, the commission's climate and energy spokesperson said. "This is often the case as an outcome from international negotiations, that not everybody gets the most optimal outcome." The IMO agreement reached last week will need to be confirmed by the organisation in October, the EU noted, even if it is a "strong foundation" and "meaningful step" towards net zero GHG emissions in global shipping by 2050. The commission will have 18 months following the IMO mechanism's formal approval to review the directive governing the bloc's emissions trading system (ETS), which currently includes maritime emissions for intra-EU voyages and those entering or leaving the bloc. By EU law, the commission will also have to report on possible "articulation or alignment" of the bloc's FuelEU Maritime regulation with the IMO, including the need to "avoid duplicating regulation of GHG emissions from maritime transport" at EU and international levels. That report should be presented, "without delay", following formal adoption of an IMO global GHG fuel standard or global GHG intensity limit. Finland's head representative at the IMO delegation talks, Anita Irmeli, told Argus that the EU's consideration of whether the approved Marpol amendments are ambitious enough won't be until "well after October". Commenting on the IMO agreement, the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) pointed to the "neutral" approach to feedstocks, including first generation biofuels. "The EBB welcomes this agreement, where all feedstocks and pathways have a role to play," EBB secretary general Xavier Noyon said. Faig Abbasov, shipping director at non-governmental organisation Transport and Environment, called for better incentives for green hydrogen. "The IMO deal creates a momentum for alternative marine fuels. But unfortunately it is the forest-destroying first generation biofuels that will get the biggest push for the next decade," he said. By Dafydd ab Iago Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

German Green party warns on climate policy for heating

14/04/25

German Green party warns on climate policy for heating

Berlin, 14 April (Argus) — Germany's soon-to-be opposition Green party today warned against the prospective new government's plans for the heating sector, which the Greens say will lead to Germany incurring high fines under the EU's effort-sharing regulation (ESR), particularly as the coalition also seeks to "deliberately delay" the EU's buildings directive. The expected new government coalition parties CDU/CSU and SPD pledged in their coalition treaty more openness and the use of "scope for implementation" to achieve energy efficiency, while emphasising their commitment to reaching climate neutrality by 2045. The coalition also agreed to end the outgoing government's building energy act, with its focus on mandatory renewable energies shares, and instead focus on "achievable CO2 avoidance" as a key performance indicator in the heating sector. In "deliberately" delaying "urgently needed" action, Germany could incur high EU fines while still making heating more expensive for users, the Greens warned, as people are driven into "fossil fuel dependencies" and "cost traps". And the lax implementation of the EU's energy performance of buildings directive (EPBD) threatens to delay refurbishment and energy efficiency, the party said. German energy efficiency association Deneff similarly warned against a delayed implementation of the EPBD and the "vague" role accorded to the carbon price in the building sector. But Deneff commended the coalition's backing of existing energy efficiency support programmes, despite the envisaged end to the buildings energy act. The act was the brainchild of the Green-led outgoing economy ministry, fiercely criticised by the then-opposition CDU/CSU and only half-heartedly supported by outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz's SPD party. A recent study found that prices under the upcoming EU emissions trading system covering buildings and road transport (EU ETS 2) could turn out much higher than anticipated by the European Commission. Cologne University-based research institute EWI in a recent paper warned that carbon prices under the ETS 2 could climb from about €120/t of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) in 2027 to more than €200/t CO2e by 2035, significantly higher than the current price of €55/t CO2e under Germany's domestic carbon pricing scheme for the sectors. This is because of the sectors' high short-term marginal abatement costs, with necessary investments such as heat pumps and building renovations being cost-intensive and progressing slowly. The Greens on 11 April slammed the coalition treaty for advocating the use of "dubious foreign emissions reductions ", its "excessive" focus on carbon capture and storage technology and touting an "overcapacity" of new gas-fired plants that could lead to a "fossil lock-in". The lower house of parliament the Bundestag on 6 May will elect CDU leader Friedrich Merz as Germany's chancellor, assuming the CDU and SPD parties give the coalition the green light as the CSU did last week. By Chloe Jardine Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Malaysian Fathopes to reach SAF plant FID by 1Q 2026

14/04/25

Malaysian Fathopes to reach SAF plant FID by 1Q 2026

Singapore, 14 April (Argus) — Malaysian biofuel feedstock supplier Fathopes Energy's planned sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) plant will reach a final investment decision (FID) in the first quarter of 2026, it said. Intital engineering design will be done from July to December 2025, Fathopes' director Eddy Leong said at an event on 10 April, speaking on behalf of the company's chief executive Vinesh Sinha. The plant's capacity is unconfirmed. Fathopes signed an initial agreement at the event with testing, inspection and certification company AmSpec Group. They aim to identify, assess and document feedstocks across Asia-Pacific, Australia and New Zealand that can be used at the planned plant. The agreement will take effect from 1 June. Besides used cooking oil (UCO), other waste feedstocks such as palm oil mill effluent (Pome) oil and spent bleaching earth oil (SBEO) will be explored. Fathopes will take the lead in collecting feedstock samples, while AmSpec will analyse their suitability for SAF production. Amspec will help develop an on-site SAF laboratory at the plant to ensure compliance with industry standards and environmental regulations. Fathopes had signed an initial agreement with Danish technology firm Topsoe in February, in which Topsoe agreed to provide catalysts and engineering expertise to assess feasibility of building the refinery. By Sarah Giam Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more