In January 2015, the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) regulations changed so that ships that ply the Baltic Sea and the North Sea can no longer use bunker fuel that exceeds 0.1 per cent v/v of sulphur. Many changes have been seen in the maritime sector, especially in the Baltic Sea region (BSR). From studies, the impact is still somewhat negative for some maritime stakeholders, such as small-scale fuel producing companies who must produce fuel that complies with the SECA requirements. The impact analysis of their compliance options shows that hydrodesulphurisation (HDS) option is the most viable option with a commensurable investment return rate, but it is highly risky and expensive considering the incessant plummeting of fuel price and the financial status of such companies.
However, even though the situation looks bleak for the small-scale maritime fuel producers, a deeper probe revealed a chance for exceptional opportunities for growth and profit through a change of business model to the maritime energy-contracting model (MEC). The study zooms in on a case study of a fuel producing company and empirically compares the operating costs of the MEC model (as a decentralised option) and the HDS process (as a centralised option) to determine which option will be most economically worthwhile if adopted as a SECA compliance strategy to ensure a rounded and robust choice-making process for maritime stakeholders in such situations.
AirClim. (2011). Air pollution from ships. Retrieved from https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/air-pollution-ships-0
2.
AtariS.PrauseG. (2017, October). Risk assessment of emission abatement technologies for clean shipping. International Conference on Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication (pp. 93–101). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
3.
BarroR. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross-section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 407–443.
4.
BergqvistR.TuressonM.WeddmarkA. (2015). Sulphur emission control areas and transport strategies-The case of Sweden and the forest industry. European Transport Research Review, 7(2), 10.
5.
BertoldiP.RezessyS.VineE. (2006). Energy service companies in European countries: Current status and a strategy to foster their development. Energy Policy, 34(14), 1818–1832.
6.
BleylJ. W. (2009). Conservation first! The new integrated energy-contracting model to combine energy efficiency and renewable supply in large buildings and industry. Retrieved form https://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/eceee_Summer_Studies/2011/1-foundations-of-future-energy-policy-cutting-the-gordian-knot/conservation-first-the-new-integrated-energy-contracting-model-to-combine-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-supply-in-large-buildings-and-industry/
7.
Bleyl-AndroschinJ. W.SchinnerlD. (2008). Energy contracting to achieve energy efficiency and renewables using comprehensive refurbishment of buildings as an example: A guide for building owners and ESCos. In Urban Energy Transition (pp. 387–408). Elsevier. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045341-5.00017-7
8.
BrynolfS.MagnussonM.FridellE.AnderssonK. (2014). Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 6–18.
9.
DemilB.LecocqX. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 227–246.
10.
Duke Energy. (2016). Sulphur dioxide scrubber technology. Retrieved from https://www.duke-energy.com/environment/air-quality/sulfur-dioxide-scrubbers.asp
11.
Eesti põlevkivitööstuse aastaraamat. (2014). Eesti Energia. Viru Keemia Grupp, Kiviõli Keemiatööstus, TTÜ Virumaa Kolledži Põlevkivi Kompetentsikeskus. Retrieved from http://www.vkg.ee/cms-data/upload/sise-uudised/eesti-polevkivitoostuse-aastaraamat-2014.pdf
12.
EfficienSea2. (2016). Report on the available technologies and sensors that can be utilized in the new system and on business model on incentives for monitoring and enforcement. Retrieved from http://efficiensea2.org/publications/
13.
EisenhardtK. M.BrownS. L. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structure chaos. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 786–789.
14.
EMSA. (2010). The 0.1% sulphur in fuel requirement as from 1 January 2015 in SECAs – An assessment of available impact studies and alternative means of compliance. European Maritime Safety Agency Technical report (pp. 30).
15.
EricksonB. E. (2003). Technology solutions: Cutting the cost of sulfur removal. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(17), 319A–320A.
16.
EsterbergK. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
17.
EU. (2014). Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. Official Journal of the European Union, L307/1–20. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014L0094
18.
Eurostat. (2016). Energy dependency in the EU. Eurostat News Release. Retrieved form ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/.../8.../c92466d9-903e-417c-ad76-4c35678113fd
19.
GoldmanC. A.HopperN. C.OsbornJ. G. (2005). Review of US ESCO industry market trends: An empirical analysis of project data. Energy Policy, 33(3), 387–405.
20.
HämäläinenE.HilmolaO. P.PrauseG.TolliA. (2016). Forecasting maritime logistics costs—will the low oil price remain? In SerryA.LévêqueL. (Eds.), Le transport maritime à courte distance (Short-Sea Shipping): Devport 2016 Conference (pp. 19–34). Le Havre, France: EMS Geodif.
21.
IMO. (2013). Sulphur oxides (SOx)—Regulation 14. Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Sulphur-oxides-(SOx)-Regulation-14.aspx
22.
International maritime organisation. (2014). Third IMO GHG study 2014. London, UK: International Maritime Organisation.
23.
IMO. (2015). Guidance on the application of regulation 13 of MARPOL annex VI Tier III requirements to dual fuel and gas-fuelled engines. London, UK: MEPC.1/Circ.854.
24.
IMO. (2016). IMO sets 2020 date for ships to comply with low sulphur fuel oil requirement. Press Briefing Release 27−28 October. Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/MEPC-70-2020sulphur.aspx
25.
JaffeA. B.PetersonS. R.PortneyP. R.StavinsR. N. (1995). Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of US manufacturing: What does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic Literature, 33(1), 132–163.
26.
LeeS. W.RyuJ. W.MinW. (2003). SK hydrodesulfurization (HDS) pretreatment technology for ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD) production. Catalysis Surveys from Asia, 7(4), 271–279.
27.
LinL.HongL.JianhuaQ.JinjuanX. (2010). Progress in the technology for desulfurization of crude oil. China Petroleum Processing and Petrochemical Technology, 12(4), 1–6.
28.
MartinR.SunleyP. (1998). Slow convergence? The new endogenous growth theory and regional development. Economic Geography, 74(3), 201–227.
29.
OECD. (2005). International standard cost model manual. Measuring and reducing administrative burdens for businesses. Paris: OECD.
30.
OECD/ITF. (2016). Reducing sulphur emissions from ships: The impact of international regulation. Retrieved from http://www.itf-oecd.org/reducing-sulphur-emissions-ships-impact-international-regulation
31.
OlaniyiE. O. (2017). Towards EU 2020: An outlook of SECA regulations implementation in the BSR. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 7(2), 182−207.
32.
OlaniyiE. O.AtariS.PrauseG. (2018a). Maritime energy contracting for clean shipping. Transport and Telecommunication, 19(1), 31−44. doi: 10.2478/ttj-2018-0004
33.
OlaniyiE. O.GerberP.PrauseG. (2018b). Strategic energy partnership in shipping. In KabashkinI.YatskivI.PrentkovskisO. (Eds.), International Conference on Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication (pp. 102−111). Cham: Springer.
34.
OlaniyiE. O.PrauseG. K. (2016). Baltic-Russian innovation cooperation in the context of EU Eastern partnership. In KerikmäeT.ChochiaA. (Eds.), Political and Legal Perspectives of the EU Eastern Partnership Policy (pp. 257–279). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
35.
OlaniyiE. O.PrauseG.BoyesenJ. (2018c). The impact of SECA regulations on clean shipping in the baltic sea region. In Trends and challenges in maritime energy management (pp. 309–323). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74576-3
36.
OlaniyiE. O.ViirmäeM. (2016). The economic impact of environmental regulations on a maritime fuel production company. Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe, 8(2), 58–84.
37.
OsterwalderA. (2004). The business model ontology: A proposition in a design science approach(Doctoral dissertation). University of Lausanne, Faculty of Business and Economics.
38.
OsterwalderA.PigneurY. (2009). Business model creation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Modderman Drukwerk.
39.
PattonM. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
40.
PourmoghaddamP.DavariS.MoghaddamZ. D. (2016). A technical and economic assessment of fuel oil hydrotreating technology for steam power plant SO2 and NOx emissions control. Advances in Environmental Technology, 2(1), 45–54.
41.
PrauseG. (2014). Smart specialization and EU Eastern innovation cooperation: A conceptual approach. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 4(1), 3–19.
42.
PrauseG.HunkeK. (2014). Sustainable entrepreneurship along green corridors. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 1(3), 124−133.
43.
PrauseG.OlaniyiE. O. (2017). The impact of environmental regulations on regional development in Eastern Estonia. New Challenges of Economic and Business Development–2017: Digital Economy, 461.
44.
RendaA.SchreflerL.LuchettaG.ZavattaR. (2013). Assessing the costs and benefits of regulation. Brüssel, Belgium: Centre for European Policy Studies. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/smartregulation/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/131210_cba_study_sg_final.pdf
45.
SolowR. M. (1994). Perspectives on growth theory. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 45–54.
46.
SorrellS. (2007). The economics of energy service contracts. Energy Policy, 35(1), 507–521.
47.
SSE. (2017). Shanghai shipping exchange freight indices. Retrieved from http://en.sse.net.cn/indices/ccfinew.jsp
48.
StakeR. E. (2000). The art of case study research: Perspectives on practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
49.
StopfordM. (2009). Maritime economics 3e (2nd ed.). London, UK; New York, NY: Routledge.
50.
UtterbackJ. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation: How companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological change. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
51.
VKG. (2015). Financial statement: The 2015 year book. Retrieved from http://www.vkg.ee/aastaraamat2015/index-en.html
52.
WiśniciB.CzermańskiE.DroździeckiS.MatczakM.SpangenbergE. (2014). Suplphur regulation–Technology solutions and economic consequences for the Baltic Sea Region shipping market. Gdańsk, Poland: Institute of Maritime Transport and Seaborne Trade, University of Gdańsk.
53.
YauchC. A. (2011). Measuring agility as a performance outcome. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 22(3), 384–404.
54.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
