Ports of Auckland could become a make-or-break issue for the Coalition

An artist’s impression of a port-less Auckland. Graphic/Stop Stealing Our Harbour

An artist’s impression of a port-less Auckland. Graphic/Stop Stealing Our Harbour

New Zealand First appears as closed-minded on the Ports of Auckland as the other vested interests, who are either opposing change or advocating for alternatives.However dysfunctional those charged with providing vital transport infrastructure can be, they somehow always manage an instant massed-wagon-circling at the very mention of reform.

The Government is about to receive reports on both the future location of the Ports of Auckland and the feasibility of upgrading Northland’s rail. Labour’s support partner, New Zealand First, is fervently committed to moving some of Auckland’s port business to Northland, saying it will relieve our biggest city of congestion and bring much-needed growth to the north. For the coalition, this could become a make-or-break issue.

Unfortunately, NZ First appears as closed-minded on the issues as the other vested interests, who are either opposing change or advocating for alternatives, such as Tauranga, the Firth of Thames or Manukau Harbour.

Because of the complex governance and ownership issues of Ports of Auckland and other potentially affected ports and public entities, any Government changes will be extremely hard to negotiate. The choices available will also be sandbagged by the virtual impossibility of getting any case for new or restored rail to stack up financially.

However, the biggest hurdle will be patch protection – not just from commercial interests, but also from public agencies who too quickly forget the wider obligation that their state-conferred monopoly status puts on them.

Chief interested party is Auckland Council, which owns 100% of the Ports of Auckland. It has consistently defended its right to the port’s undiminished annual dividend of more than $50 million – to the point of vowing to build a multistorey waterfront car park for more revenue.

Mayor Phil Goff is adamant the port is essential to Auckland’s future. However, this assertion is debatable, given that a city such as Sydney survives very well with its harbour reserved for cruise ships and cargo sent to Port Botany, Wollongong or Newcastle.

Loss of port revenue would, however, doubtless force Aucklanders to pay for the loss with even higher rates, for benefits mostly accruing outside its boundaries. This would be unfair, especially to those on low incomes, and so politically dangerous that no sane administration would cause it to happen.

Perhaps a better starting point would be to regularise, even centralise, the haphazard patchwork of ports ownership. This would inevitably land the Government with a fat compensation bill, but the existing potpourri of local body, port-specific and private shareholders is a barrier to efficiency. Intra-agency competition and multiple interests – Auckland part-owns Tauranga’s and Northland’s port as well – further occlude the picture.

The National Party’s policy of treating the ports as discrete commercial entities immune from state interference is recklessly hands-off. But, by the same token, Aucklanders may be incensed at seeing their port asset commandeered, especially with NZ First so blatantly using Northland as its electoral base.

Yet, Auckland’s port must somehow be restored to being part of the national ports network. Aucklanders, used to the city’s infamous congestion, would be the first to agree it remains an international embarrassment that a prime waterfront site is used to store second-hand cars. Moving the port would unlock 77ha of superb shore land.

Northland’s Marsden Point tempts as an existing deep-water port, which, with a suitable rail spur from the Auckland line, could handle the business. Tourist and even commuter growth could ensue. Yet, there are other considerations, including the likelihood that moving the port to Northland would hugely increase congestion in Auckland, since most goods exported out of it are produced south of the city and would have to pass through it. Even if some of the goods went by train – and the expense of building rail tracks could itself prove prohibitive – the trains would be more frequent and longer, causing frustrating delays at level crossings. There are also the climate-change considerations, with increased emissions from transporting freight over longer distances.

In New Zealand, 99.7% of all imports and exports travel by sea, so the ports issue is not trivial. Any changes to these assets will affect, for better or worse, numerous other sectors and projects, not least the still-uncosted light rail to Auckland Airport. The sheer complexity and political risk may simply end in inertia. But everyone concerned has a duty to approach this debate with the country’s best interests at heart.

An electoral double-whammy on Auckland Port’s future

Container straddle cranes are being automated as part of moves to extend the terminal's capacity and life
Container straddle cranes are being automated as part of moves to extend the terminal’s capacity and life

Todd Niall – RNZ.

OPINION: The future of Auckland’s downtown port deserves careful and unemotive consideration – the problem is, it will become entangled in two elections in the next two years.

The big question is, should all or part of Ports of Auckland’s current operations go elsewhere, either to existing upper North Island ports, or to a brand new port?

Before the 2017 general election New Zealand First pledged to move the whole thing to Northland by 2027 – with the vehicle import trade gone this year.

Mayor Phil Goff (2nd from right) and Councillor Paul Young (left) watching the arrival of new container cranes at the port
SUPPLIEDMayor Phil Goff (2nd from right) and Councillor Paul Young (left) watching the arrival of new container cranes at the port

 A working group led by former Far North mayor Wayne Brown has finished an interim report after canvassing the views of major stakeholders on the futures of the three major upper North Island ports, but it has yet to go to cabinet, and is described as “non-decision-making.”.

A more substantial “final” report from the group is expected in September, a month before local body elections.

Cruise ship berths will eventually move further east, as Ports of Auckland shrinks its cargo and container space
Cruise ship berths will eventually move further east, as Ports of Auckland shrinks its cargo and container space

That is expected to be only the end of the beginning of the debate, signalling the investigations needed if the idea is to be pursued.

Those who were at an early meeting involving Brown and Auckland mayor Phil Goff, described the tone as “interesting”, and the pair clashed publicly even before that meeting.

Goff is navigating a tricky political path, having himself campaigned in 2016 on moving the car trade, and eventually the port, but now having to defend the interests of ratepayers who own Ports of Auckland through the council.

The mayor has quickly filed away a report he commissioned in 2017, hoped to show the economic argument for shifting the vehicle trade out of Auckland.

The report by NZIER in fact found the gain of reclaiming part of the waterfront to be $115 million, but the net cost of losing the trade to be around $1 billion.

If the Brown group report is delivered in the run-up to the local body elections it risks fuelling political posturing on an issue needing no urgent decisions.

Ports of Auckland is working to ensure it can do its job for another 30-40 years within its existing footprint, and even then no one knows what new technology, or trade patterns might extend that.

Automation of the container terminal alone will nearly double the capacity it has today.

Ugly though the port might be, it directly employs about 500 staff, pays $68m in wages, and chips a $51m annual profit into council coffers.

In short, it may never have to move, but there are arguments in favour of it doing so, and releasing prime waterfront land for more public enjoyment.

Any huffing and puffing this year over the port might pale against what could happen next year, as the parties in the coalition government return to their individual stances in the run-up to the general election.

NZ First will want to show progress on its 2017 pledge, with both leader Winston Peters and list MP Shane Jones – who oversees the port work – wanting to keep faith with their Northland supporters.

Labour’s influence in the cautiously worded work now underway suggests less enthusiasm for a rush to undertake the biggest infrastructure project the country has ever seen, in relocating all or part of a port, with the roading and rail links needed.

Shareholders would solve Ports of Auckland’s problems

New cranes at Ports of Auckland. Photo / Jason Oxenham
New cranes at Ports of Auckland. Photo / Jason Oxenham

NZ Herald Editorial

COMMENT:

Of all the policies the NZ First Party brought into this coalition Government, the wildest and wackiest was to move the entire port of Auckland to Marsden Pt. The Labour Party agreed only to commission a feasibility study the idea of moving the port and left open the choice of alternative sites. Winston Peters, hoping to hold the Northland seat, promised to move the whole operation to Northport, but the coalition agreement merely directed Northport be given “serious consideration”.

The feasibility study led by former Far North District mayor Wayne Brown is reported to have produced an interim report for the Government and its tentative suggestions ought to be interesting. The fact that ministers will receive at the same time a report on upgrading the railway from Auckland the Marsden Pt suggests Northport is the preferred alternative for at least some of Auckland’s imports.

Doubtless there are countless ways that goods shipped to or from New Zealand could be better shared between various ports, not only for more efficient handling and distribution but also to stop the Auckland port encroaching ever further on the Waitematā harbour.

Doubtless too, the companies running ports would quickly find a more efficient use of them — within the constraints on Auckland — if Ports of Auckland Ltd had commercial shareholders.

Its nearest rivals, Port of Tauranga and Northport, are majority owned by their local bodies but also have tradeable shares which has resulted in a degree of cross-ownership. Tauranga has a stake in Northport, as does Ports of Auckland Ltd. But PoAL is entirely owned by the Auckland Council which has been averse to any of its business going to other ports.

Total public ownership has been a mixed blessing for Auckland citizens. While the council collects all the port’s dividends it suffers a conflict of interest when Aucklanders oppose the port’s further expansion. Despite a long campaign to stop the port company extending wharves for the latest cruise ships, the council is allowing moored “dolphins” and walkways to extend Queens Wharf.

Mayor Phil Goff did not exactly welcome news this week that an interim report of the feasibility study has arrived on ministers’ desks. “Any decisions on the future of Ports of Auckland should have the agreement of the council,” he said. “We accept that at some point the growth of freight into Auckland will outgrow the land available…..” Citizens opposed to further harbour reclamation would say that point was reached some time ago. Goff said the same when he stood for election.

“However, the port is also a critical lifeline of freight into our city,” he says now. No it is not. Freight from any other port could reach Auckland, making room for cruise ships within Auckland port’s existing harbour footprint.

Most of Auckland’s port is unlikely to be going anywhere. The feasibility study should be looking at rationalising the use of all New Zealand Ports but it should not suppose politicians can best decide where freight goes. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is planning to partially float its port at Napier. If the Auckland Council did likewise it would see the city’s interests more clearly.

Maersk: Massive Innovative Solutions Must Happen in Next 5-10 Years

At the end of last year, the world’s largest shipping company Maersk revealed plans on becoming a carbon neutral company by 2050.

The efforts are in line with the shipping industry’s push to halve its carbon footprint by 2050 compared to 2008.

“We do not by net-zero refer to off-setting CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. By committing to this target, we believe we will drive the transformation of the shipping industry towards use of carbon-neutral fuels,” the company said in its sustainability report for 2018.

Maersk believes that efficiency can only keep shipping emissions stable, not reduce or eliminate them.

“Nevertheless, until decarbonisation is achieved, decoupling business growth from emissions is a necessity, and we have set an efficiency target of 60% relative reduction in CO2 by 2030 from a 2008 baseline. With these targets, we are breaking the mould for climate targets and ambitions in the shipping industry.”

Maersk had set a target of 60% relative reductions by 2020, using a 2007 baseline. By the end of 2018, the company reached 47% reduction since 2007.

These have been achieved through massive investments in optimizing fleet efficiency, with technical retrofittings including capacity boost, new bulbous bows, propellers and engine modifications, as well as by improving planning and optimizing of networks.

However, as explained, this is not enough to reach 60% in two years’ time.

Hence, the company pointed out that massive innovative solutions and fuel transformation must take place in the next 5-10 years.

“Over the last four years alone, we have invested USD 1 billion and engaged 50+ engineers each year in developing and deploying energy efficiency solutions. We expect this investment level to be sustained in pursuit of our new targets. Efficiency gains do not, however, solve the climate change problem. That can only be achieved through decarbonization,” the company said.


Transformation of the 100-Year Old Business Model

Transforming the shipping industry which has run on relatively cheap, heavy fuel for 100 years is not an easy task. In addition to new ship designs and engine types, there is a need for new types of fuel as well as building entire new supply chains for these new solutions, Maersk insists.

“All of this breakthrough innovation will have to take place in the 2020s and is more than any single company can do,” the company adds.

As a result, the shipping major urges all parties involved to collaborate on incentives and development of innovative solutions to usher in  the age of zero-carbon vessels.

“We want to begin a dialogue with cargo owners, regulators, researchers, investors and technology developers, and together set the foundation for a sustainable industry,” Maersk said, pointing out that research and development will be the cornerstone in decarbonizing the shipping industry.

The Pursuit of Solutions Must Begin Now

Zero-emission, commercially-viable vessels must be on the water by 2030, Maersk believes, especially due to the 20-25-year lifetime of a vessel.

“This should be followed by an initial slow ramping up, allowing maturing of technology and supply chain in order to be able to turn around our entire fleet for net-zero carbon emissions in 2050. This leaves us and the industry only eleven years to find the right solutions for a positive business case for decarbonization.

“For the next few years, it is very important not to rule out any solutions. There are several promising technologies at various stages of development. All solutions will come with benefits and challenges to be overcome and only by actively partnering, collaborating and undertaking research and development will we know which ones will win out. There are several technologies and fuels being developed these years within the areas such as advanced biofuels and hydrogen-based fuels.”

Maersk said that it has already engaged in research and test programs in some of these technologies, for example sustainable biofuels.

“Over the coming years, we will expand the range of solutions we are investigating. This will prepare us for selecting a few candidates we will pursue for the first carbon-neutral vessels.

” Our 2030 efficiency target is strong enough to ensure that we continue to decouple CO2 emission levels from growth in trade and volumes shipped. With this target, we will not exacerbate our contribution to climate change while we grow our business, serve global trade and support job creation.”

Govt forced KiwiRail to backtrack on locomotives decision, documents show

Newly released documents show the government forced KiwiRail to backtrack on its decision to ditch the electric locomotives on the North Island’s main trunk line.

According to the Treasury, it’s the first time a state-owned enterprise has been directed by a minister to make a decision that didn’t stack up commercially.

The State-Owned Enterprises Act said an entity’s principle objective was to be a successful business.

In 2016, KiwiRail’s board decided to replace its 15 electric locomotives with diesel, arguing it would make the company more efficient and better able to take freight, and with less freight going by road, there’d be a positive environmental impact.

On 30 October last year the government put a stop to the plan instead promising a $35 million cash injection to refurbish the electric locomotives.

In a letter to Transport Minister Phil Twyford two weeks before the decision was announced, acting chief executive Todd Moyle made it clear KiwiRail didn’t have the money to refurbish the locomotives.

“KiwiRail has no funding for these additional costs and is unable to recoup the investment and there is no uplift in revenue associated with this decision,” he wrote.

Labour Party MP Phil Twyford.

Transport Minister Phil Twyford Photo: RNZ / Mei Heron

But a Cabinet minute written the day before the government’s announcement, showed Cabinet agreed to use its powers under the State Owned Enterprises Act to direct the company to provide a non-commercial service.

Mr Twyford said being a successful SOE was more than just about profit and loss for a particular year, and this government wanted to grow rail.

He said previous governments had left KiwiRail on financial life support with no future vision.

“That’s not how our government sees it, we’re committed to bringing rail into the heart of the transport system, instead of treating it as the poor cousin and drip-feeding it a little bit of money year after year and barely keeping it alive,” he said.

KiwiRail uses electric locomotives on the main trunk line between Hamilton and Palmerston North.

When it said it was going to switch to diesel, the Rail and Maritime Transport Union accused it of “environmental terrorism”.

The union’s general secretary Wayne Butson said the decision to go down the diesel track was the best case of reverse engineering he’d ever seen.

“What you started with as your opening premise was the decision that they wanted to have and then they just worked backwards, and they screwed the scrum, massaged the logic and the numbers”, he said.

He said at that time KiwiRail’s board were wedded to a philosophy of simplify and standardise.

“There was this mantra which said ‘we only wanted one type of wagon, we only want one type of loco and that will give us immeasurable gains over time. It will reduce the inventory that we need, in terms of spares that we need for things’. In my view it didn’t have any logic,” he said.

Mr Butson said that decision failed to consider the needs of a modern railway, which must have some level of variation in the types of locomotives and wagons it uses.

Engineer Roger Blakeley said the decision to scrap the electrics was at odds with the Labour government’s target of getting to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and leader Jacinda Ardern’s claimthat climate change was her generation’s “nuclear free moment”.

“With the diesel locomotives, if KiwiRail went ahead with them, it would burn an extra 8 million litres of diesel fuel per year and add around 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year. That’s what would have been the implications of a switch back to diesels,” he said.

The Palmerston North to Hamilton route was electrified in the 1980s and the plan then was to carry on and electrify the whole main trunk line from Wellington to Auckland.

It’s estimated completing the project now would cost around a billion dollars.

Mr Twyford said it’s not part of the government’s immediate work programme.

Works start on a notorious stretch of SH1

Works have started on one of the worst accident black spots on State Highway One.

No caption

Photo: The Wireless / Luke McPake

Starting tonight, contractors will be felling trees and removing vegetation in the Dome Valley, north of Auckland.

New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) said crews would be working overnight from 7pm to 6am, to minimise traffic disruption.

The job will take about two weeks.

The work will clear the way for major safety improvements along a 15km stretch from Wellsford to north of Warkworth, and includes widening, right-hand turning bays and flexible road safety barriers.

The winding road through the Dome Valley is notorious for crashes.

NZTA is advising motorists travelling between Northland and Auckland to plan ahead and allow extra time for their journeys.

Gordon Campbell on why shipping is New Zealand’s big new trade problem

So Jacinda Ardern and Theresa May have signed a piece of paper promising peace in our time when it comes to our trade with Britain.

Hard Brexit deal or no Brexit deal at all, there will be something called ‘regulatory continuity’ that will ensure the rules governing our trade with Britain won’t change overnight. Reportedly, Ardern thinks this should re-assure our meat industry, even though (small detail) this piece of paper is not a guarantee of trade access. So if and when Britain crashes out of the EU causing goods to pile up on both sides of the Channel and our lamb exports can’t get through to Britain for the Easter trade etc etc at least we’ll be able to sleep easy in our beds knowing that the red meat quota hasn’t changed for now. Small comfort, one would think.

Right now, a statement from Theresa May on Brexit has as much credibility as a statement by Donald Trump about North Korea’s plans for scrapping its nukes. Despite her recent crushing defeat in the Commons, May is continuing to playing chicken with Britain’s future, for personal and party advantage. No change there. She is still gambling she can terrify enough of her MPs (and the public) about the chaos of a ‘no deal’ such that Parliament will eventually ratify her wretched deal as the least worst option available. In these circumstances, New Zealand is useful only insofar as we can contribute to the illusion that Number 10 is open for something that looks like business as usual. It isn’t, of course. On both sides of the Atlantic, the practices of normal government are in virtual shutdown.

The Marpol Treaty “Tax”

Brexit is not the only concern. To date, the Ardern government’s biggest crisis came in the spring of 2018 when global fuel prices rose, and the public chose to blame the price hikes on domestic fuel tax increases. At the pump, people largely ignored the major global spike in the price of oil and raged instead about the relatively minor tax add-ons imposed by central and regional government. Panicked, the government blamed the oil companies. Luckily for all concerned, the global oil price suddenly slumped, and the political problems have largely subsided. Holiday motoring, which could have been a nagging reminder all summer of the intersection between fuel taxes and petrol prices, has caused no ripples on the political pond.

In 2019 though, a new and different kind of fuel price Godzilla is coming over the horizon, and it is likely to boost the prices of everything going in and out of the country, from Amazon packages to milk powder. It is called the Marpol Treaty, and like many things that change the world for better and worse, it started out with the best of intentions. Basically, the Marpol Treaty is a set of UN-mandated regulations (devised by the International Maritime Organisation) that among other things, is aimed at cracking down on the pollution emitted by ships, and the crucial bits are in Annex VI. As Bloomberg News recently reported, the global shipping fleets currently consume about 3.8 million barrels a day of fuel oil — in the main, this is heavy, lower-value stuff from a refining process that contains about 1 to 3.5 percent sulphur. That content level is about to change:

From January 2020, new rules from the International Maritime Organization will limit sulphur-dioxide emissions from ships. All else equal, a ship would need to burn fuel with only 0.5 percent sulphur content or less to comply.

Oh sure, there are a few ways of mitigating the impact. “Scrubbers” can be installed on board to wash the bad sulphury content into the sea, but they’re expensive to install and operate, and obviously they add to marine pollution. Very few ships will have them in place by 2020. New ships can be built to run on liquified natural gas, but obviously, that’s no answer for the existing fleets. Also, ships can be induced to steam at slower speeds, which would cut down on their emissions. New Zealand, which is famously far from its markets, would probably not welcome any move guaranteed to bring its exports/imports to market at a slower pace.

In fact, distance is one reason why the Marpol Treaty regulations may impact more severely on New Zealand than on most other nations. The advent of the Internet and digital commerce may have shrunk distance in many respects, but lets not kid ourselves. As the New Zealand official briefing papers on Marpol point out:

New Zealand relies on international shipping to move some 98 percent (by weight) of its imports and exports.

And moreover:

Over 96 percent of international maritime trade, including almost all ships involved in New Zealand’s international trade, is carried on ships registered to States that have acceded to Annex VI [which contains the sulphur emission rules]

Oh, and there’s yet another problem. The Marsden Point refinery does not seem able to cope with the changes that are coming down the pike:

The cost of retooling Marsden Point to convert all high-sulphur residues to MARPOL-compliant product will be high and prohibitively expensive. The refinery is currently exploring if it is possible to produce smaller volumes of 0.5% sulphur fuel, and what may be required to achieve this. This has not yet been fully scoped nor costed. Currently, high sulphur by-products from refining have commercial value to Marsden Point. Once the 0.5 % sulphur requirement comes into force, this situation may change, affecting the refinery’s business model in this regard. In the event that there is a major shift to low SOx fuels, there is an open question as to how the high sulphur residues will be disposed of or used.

Do I hear the cliché “perfect storm”? Here’s another contributing factor to that storm. As the folks at Bloomberg point out, the transition to a low-sulphur diesel or gas oil fuel is also likely to push the price of the good low-sulphur diesel sharply upwards. At which point of course, President Trump could decide to intervene, if only to stop any sharp increase in fuel costs for MAGA-cap wearing truckers from undermining his chances for re-election in 2020:

While fuel-oil prices would tank, the price of low-sulphur diesel would, all else equal, jump. That’s a problem for truckers — like the ones ferrying Amazon’s goodies around — for whom fuel has fluctuated between roughly 20 to 40 percent of the cost-per-mile over the past decade. This explains why President Trump…might want to slow the International Maritime Organisation’s roll in 2020. However, since the U.S. effectively agreed to the rules a decade ago via an act of Congress, delaying or thwarting them isn’t a simple process. Despite efforts by the Trump administration to turn it, a supertanker is bearing down on drivers, oil majors, and even Amazon.com Inc.

Footnote: According to the government briefing document linked to above, New Zealand needs to get its position together on the Marpol Treaty Annex VI process quite soon. A Cabinet decision to accede to the process is expected in the first half of 2019. All going well, a parliamentary select committee would then consider the National Interest Analysis (NIA) and treaty text, and report back to Parliament by mid-2019. Government agencies would complete work on the regulatory amendments required to put the Treaty provisions into domestic law by the third quarter of 2020, and New Zealand would hope to deposit its instrument of accession with the IMO by late 2020, with the aim of putting our compliance into effect by the beginning of 2021. Right now, public submissions are being invited, and the closing date is 11 February 2019. Werewolf will continue to report on this issue.

MAN Cryo Takes Further Step towards Cleaner Shipping in World-First

MAN Cryo, the wholly owned subsidiary of MAN Energy Solutions, has – in close cooperation with Fjord1 and Multi Maritime in Norway – developed a marine fuel-gas system for liquefied hydrogen.

Multi Maritime’s hydrogen vessel design for Fjord1, including the fully integrated ‘MAN Cryo – Hydrogen Fuel Gas System’, has been granted preliminary approval in principle, “AIP”, by the DNV-GL Classification society. The award is significant in that the system is the first marine-system design globally to secure such an approval.

Dr Uwe Lauber, CEO of MAN Energy Solutions, said: “Winning this approval is a significant development for a number of reasons. As a solution for vessels employed on relatively short maritime routes, such as ferries, this technology is a world-first and showcases our company’s ability to deliver genuinely innovative solutions. Furthermore, Hydrogen is a clean fuel whose profile fits perfectly with the general desire within the industry to move towards cleaner technology. The possibilities for this technology are varied and exciting.”

MAN Cryo developed the Liquid Hydrogen Marine Fuel Gas System design in-house at its headquarters in Gothenburg in close cooperation with the shipowner, Fjord1, and ship designer, Multi Maritime, in Norway.

Louise Andersson, Head of MAN Cryo, said: “To secure this approval in principle shows the determination that MAN Energy Solutions has to advance cleaner shipping solutions.”

She continued: “Our strategy is to actively work with our customers to design and promote cleaner ways of powering vessels, and the competence and energy within MAN Cryo conveys this strategy excellently.”

Fuel-gas system for liquefied hydrogen

The system has a scalable design that allows easy adaptation for different shipping types, sizes and conditions. The design is suited for both above- and below-deck applications, offering ship designers the flexibility to optimise their designs in relation to efficiency, and to cargo or passenger space.

MAN Cryo has long experience with cryogenic gases and solutions for storage and distribution. The company has also made numerous hydrogen installations over the years on land that, in combination with its extensive experience from marine fuel-gas systems for LNG, have been invaluable when designing the new system.

Liquefied hydrogen has a temperature of -253° Celsius and is one of the absolutely coldest cryogenic gases there is, which places system components and materials under extreme stresses. Another design challenge was hydrogen’s explosive nature, with the MAN Cryo engineering team accordingly placing top priority on safety.

Once liquefied, hydrogen is reduced to 1/800th of its volume, compared to that of its gas phase, facilitating a more-efficient distribution. As a fuel, hydrogen does not release any CO2 and can play an important role in the transition to a clean, low-carbon, energy system. Liquefied hydrogen can be used to charge batteries for electrical propulsion via fuel-cell technology. MAN Cryo states that it sees a bright future for hydrogen applications globally as part of its target of achieving zero fossil emissions within the marine sector by 2050. In particular, Norway is currently developing several promising hydrogen applications.

The Maritime Energy Transition

Shipping in particular is facing great challenges with regard to more environmentally-friendly fuel sources, which is why MAN Energy Solutions has argued in favour of what it terms a ‘Maritime Energy Transition’ for some time as the most promising way to achieve a climate-neutral shipping industry.

The term ‘Maritime Energy Transition’ stems from the German expression ‘Energiewende’ and encapsulates MAN Energy Solutions’ call to action to reduce emissions and establish natural gas as the fuel of choice in global shipping. It is also an umbrella covering all MAN Energy Solutions’ activities in regard to supporting a climate-neutral shipping industry. Launched in 2016 after COP 21, the initiative has since found broad support within the shipping industry and German politics.

About MAN Cryo

MAN Cryo offers systems for the storage, distribution and handling of liquefied gases and has a pioneering reputation within the marine sector and LNG business development. It supplied the world’s first LNG fuel-gas system for the ‘Glutra’ ferry in Norway in 1999, a vessel that is still operational to this day. More recently, in 2013, MAN Cryo supplied the world’s first bunker vessel, the ‘SeaGas’, with operations in Stockholm, Sweden. The design for the conversion of the SeaGas was also provided by Multi Maritime with whom MAN Cryo has a long-time cooperation.
Source: MAN Energy Solutions

An aerial view of Ports of Auckland from the west.
SUPPLIED
An aerial view of Ports of Auckland from the west.

A rift has opened up between Auckland Council and the Government over how the future of the city’s port will be decided.

Mayor Phil Goff says there’s a risk that a Government-appointed working group looking at the upper North Island ports might have pre-determined whether Auckland’s council-owned port could move, and if so where.

Goff said he put a “robust” view to the working group’s chair, former Far North mayor Wayne Brown, in a private meeting last week.

A council commissioned study found shifting the vehicle import trade, could lose Auckland $1 billion
BEVAN READ/STUFF
A council commissioned study found shifting the vehicle import trade, could lose Auckland $1 billion

He said Brown’s public rejection of two potential locations identified by a council study didn’t give confidence, and the group didn’t appear to have enough time or resources to do a proper job.

The council on Tuesday approved a blunt letter to be sent to Brown, ahead of the council’s first formal meeting with the working group in just over a fortnight.

Goff favoured the eventual shift of the port from its current location on the downtown waterfront, but was unhappy with the approach being taken by the working group.

The council will tell the group that its priorities include protecting the value of Ports of Auckland, which last year paid it a $51.1 million dividend.

It is also telling the working group it wants a transparent, objective and evidence-based approach to reviewing the future of the ports in Auckland, Tauranga and Whangarei.

Auckland Council has conducted the most detailed work so far on the future of its port.

Previous mayor Len Brown funded out of his office budget the Port Future Study, which in 2016 found the port might not outgrow its current site in 50 years, but that work should begin on identifying alternatives, in case it did.

Before the 2017 elections New Zealand First advocated an early shift of the vehicle-import trade from Auckland to Northland’s port.

The coalition government including New Zealand First took a bigger picture approach, setting up the Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy working group, in line with a request from Auckland Council.

New Zealand First MP and Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones who oversees the working group, has since been vocal on matters relating to the future of Auckland’s port.

At the start of November Jones said he would do all he could to head-off a planned multi-storey carpark building planned by Ports of Auckland, to house vehicles arriving in the port.

“Public statements have created the impression of pre-determination,” said the council in a letter to the chair of the working group Wayne Brown.

Brown has made public comment favouring a move to Northland, including an opinion column published in November 2017 before being appointed to chair the group.

“Imagine the Auckland waterfront without used cars getting the best views,” Brown wrote.

“Watch for self-justifying job-saving promises from Ports of Auckland to fend off any sensible moves like Sydney has made keeping the harbour just for cruise liners and sending cargo to Wollongong and Newcastle.”

The council’s letter pointed to comments by Brown.

“Indicating a strong preference for relocation of some or all of POAL activities to Northport prior to any analysis is unhelpful,” said the letter which Goff will sign.

“Any plans to move all or some of the Port’s functions requires the concurrence of its owners, the people of Auckland, through Auckland Council,” said the letter.

“I’ve already said to the chair, we’ve put a lot of work into two future options (Manukau Harbour and Firth of Thames) and you’ve dismissed this out of hand, which gives us no confidence,” Goff told today’s planning committee meeting.

The council has spelled out 10 areas it wants the working group to examine closely.

These include the feasible capacity of all upper North Island ports, as well as the climate change impacts of moving freight to and from the ports.

It wanted work done on the social and community impacts of any change, and how and when a future new port would be funded.

The council will have its first meeting with the government’s working group on December 13.

 

How Will Ships Help Save the Environment?

The search for zero emissions is at the forefront of the maritime industry development. The regulations on the horizon, limiting the sulphur content in marine fuel, are only the first step in making shipping green. Stricter rules and initiatives will continue going forward, and there are already ways to prepare for a clean and environmentally friendly maritime future. One of them is hydrogen fuel cells that could revolutionise the way vessels are powered.

Companies are already looking into the possibility of fuel-cell technology for ships. A maritime research group Sintef Ocean and the pioneering technology group ABB are collaborating to examine ways fuel cells could power full-sized vessels. The scientists believe that this technology could become competitive with fossil fuels, even when it comes to big vessels. Right now the process is still in the experimentation stage, testing diesel, battery and fuel cell combinations under different loads on a vessel simulator.

As of yet, it is unclear when the research portion of the process will yield tangible results. However, fuel cells have already proven its usefulness in busses, trains, trucks and are receiving significant investments in the automotive industry, paving the way for marine applications. According to ABB, this technology could have an extensive reach in the maritime sector within three to five years after the implementation of the first systems.

Already the industry is moving forward with the idea. Japan’s NYK Group has recently unveiled a new concept ship, the NYK Super Eco Ship 2050. It is designed to be powered by solar energy and hydrogen fuel cells produced from renewable energy sources.

Further along in development, a hydrogen fuel cell powered passenger ferry is being built in the San Francisco Bay Area and is expected to be operational by the end of 2019. The vessel named the Water-Go-Round could possibly become the world’s first hydrogen fuel-cell ferry. It will be 70 feet long and able to carry 84 passengers at the speed of 22 knots. Competing for the ‘first of its kind’ title is the HySeas III vessel under construction in Scotland by Ferguson Marine. However, the European vessel is expected to launch only in 2021, but with construction delays in the US or streamlined processes in the UK – both ferries could hit the waters at the same time. At this point, it’s too early to tell which one will become the world’s first.

In any case, the zero-emission maritime future is coming closer with the rapid development of fuel-cell technology. This power source could completely eliminate carbon dioxide emissions and provide considerable advantages to the environment.

Could hydrogen fuel cells become the preferred source for marine propulsion in the future? Ask shipowners, maritime experts and high-level shipping professionals at the 2nd Green Maritime Forum in Hamburg on 2-3 April 2019. The event will have presentations, panel discussions, a focus exhibition and networking breaks where you will have direct access to key industry innovators and leading decision-makers
Source: Wisdom Events