Carriers turn their gaze back to scrubbers as voyage results tumble
The world’s largest container shipping line, MSC, has taken delivery of the new world’s largest ...
Fuel prices vary, of course, but based on the economics put forward in Seatrade Maritime, it looks as if scrubbers may be a poor investment if early assessments of the price spread between high-sulphur bunker fuel and the low-sulphur version are correct. As the article notes, “should the fuel spread drop to just $40, there would be no business case for a 20MW scrubber, while a $100 spread would see a payback period of less than two years”.
What is striking about this particular brand of economic argument, however, is the lack of consideration over where the burden of the costs fall.
Scrubbers require investment from shipping lines, whose customers will then benefit from lower fuel costs. Those lines which don’t opt for scrubbers, are passing the higher fuel bills straight to their customers – who may instead choose a carrier which has made the investment.
And that’s an entirely different economic argument for the case of scrubbers vs high cost fuel.
Worker no-shows force US west coast port terminal shutdowns
Major ocean carriers set course for more-profitable routes
Hapag-Lloyd CEO bullish on prospects for a peak season
New call for White House intervention as USWC port disruption continues
'AI revolution' set to drive into Felixstowe with robot truck fleet
Strike vote at Pacific ports in Canada sparks fresh worries for BCOs
TSA urges US forwarders and shippers to prepare for new security rules
Transpac rates head north as carriers face Panama Canal restrictions
Bullish Flexport will 'hit the ground running' as it integrates Shopify logistics
CH Robinson CEO – Bozeman who?
Crew member injured as fire hits MSC containership
HMM tops Xeneta 'name and fame' list of greenest shipping lines
Comment on this article