Topic: Clean Fuel Rules May Prompt FO to Bypass Canada

A British cruise line has said it will likely drop its Canada-New England itinerary as a result of requirements to use cleaner fuel within 200 nautical miles of North American shores, according to industry reports.

Tim Moore, tour manager for Fred. Olsen Cruises, said a recently approved emissions control area would increase fuel costs by $16,000 a day, at which point the line “would not be here,” according to a report on the website of Cruise Industry News.

Travel Industry Today reported that Mr. Moore said the cruise line “will almost certainly” drop the Canada-New England region after 2012, when the cleaner fuel requirements take effect.

A Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines representative was not immediately available to comment.

The Canadian cruise sector has been asking Transport Canada to consider the economic fallout as it draws up rules to implement the clean air buffer zone.

The International Maritime Organization approved the emissions control area in March after a joint application from Canada and the United States, paving the way for both countries to draw up regulations to enforce it and for the new requirements to go into effect by 2012.
In the ECA, the allowable level of sulphur in fuels will drop to 1 per cent in 2012 and to 0.1 per cent in 2015. The current global limit is 4.5 per cent. Cruise ships in Canadian waters typically burn bunker fuel that has a sulphur content ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 per cent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said the changes will save as many as 14,000 lives a year by improving air quality.

Container and cargo ships would also be subject to the requirements, but only when they are within the 200-mile limit. Cruise ships on the East and West Coasts would be within the buffer zone for the duration of their journeys.

While saying they support the health and environmental goals behind the creation of the ECA, cruise industry associations have questioned the research on which the regime is based and warned that it could hurt the Canadian cruise sector.

Based on current fuel prices, the cost to meet the 2015 standard equates to “$100-million in additional costs for the Alaska cruises and $30-million for New England/Canada cruises annually,” the Northwest Cruiseship Association said in a May briefing note to Transport Canada.
Among suggestions in the briefing paper, the association wants
Transport Canada to consider alternative means, such as scrubbers, that ships could use to meet emissions goals, and to take a piecemeal, rather than blanket, approach.

“The ECA area should be tuned to prioritize those areas where urgency
exists and the greatest health and environmental benefits can be achieved,” the paper states.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority last month released the results of an air quality study for the James Bay neighbourhood of Victoria, a popular cruise ship stop. The study found sulphur dioxide levels spiked when cruise ships were arriving or leaving port and that those higher levels could aggravate health conditions such as asthma and lung disease. The region’s chief medical officer has called on cruise ships to switch to lower-sulphur fuel while in or near port ahead of the 2012 requirements.

Some North American ports, including Vancouver, Seattle and Juneau, have installed shore power systems that allow cruise ships to connect to city grids while docked. About one-third of ship calls this season in Vancouver will hook up to the system.

From: the globeandmail.com

Hi Shell , This has been in force down here for a long time, any ship coming up the western approaches has to anchor out in Falmouth Bay, and have the thick heavy oil changed before. proceeding up the Channel. This is a big business !!

For the same reason, this is why only 'newer' ships cruise Alaska because only they can comply with the very strict environmental rules.

Olsen's old fleet, charming though it is, does push out some smoke at times!;)

QUOTE:

Hi Shell , This has been in force down here for a long time, any ship coming up the western approaches has to anchor out in Falmouth Bay, and have the thick heavy oil changed before. proceeding up the Channel. This is a big business !!

so if that's what Canada want, how does the FO fleet manage in the UK?

QUOTE:

so if that's what Canada want, how does the FO fleet manage in the UK?

Good question..
Fred Olsen should talk to Princess, Cunard, Holland America as they all do the majority of the Canada / New England Cruise for the May - September season and are not complaining.
All has to with pricing and they knew this was in discussions quite awhile ago.
Fred Olsen does not do a lot of cruises here anyhow.

The Vancouver report was based on a 2008/2009 study of the port and is subject to debate though nobody is arguing about a switch to low sulphur fuel.
It all has to do with time in port..

Course they did not mention our Navy or Industrial bases close to the cruise port.

Cheers

ps: see my article on my blog posted May 31, 2010
RobBar's Cruising

The cleaner fuel regulations also apply to the UK.

Last year, we cruised on Tahitian Princess from New York to Dover via various ports in Canada, Greenland, Iceland and Norway. (It was a superb itinerary.)

Tahitian Princess needed to take on "cleaner" fuel at Bergen, before we departed for the UK. The Captain apologised for the delay and explained that although the ship had sufficient ordinary fuel to reach Dover, he did not want to risk prosecution for using "dirty" fuel in British waters, which could have led to a heavy fine or even imprisonment.

Just returned from the Baltic on the Balmoral and noticed plenty of thick black smoke coming out of the funnel. Downwind was very smelly too!

Could this why the engine packed up in Copenhagen and caused a very late arrival at Dover?

We recently did a Baltic cruise on FOs Braemar.and always notice fumey smells in the lifts.When we came through the Keil Canal the fumes in our cabin were so bad we went on deck to get some fresh air.The fumes were obviously coming through the air con.We also were told by another couple that after phoning FOs head office in the middle of the night to report fumes they were eventually given another cabin. Come on Fred Olsen we all have to comply with the new regulations if we care about each other and especially our planet. Cost should not come into it.

QUOTE:

We recently did a Baltic cruise on FOs Braemar.and always notice fumey smells in the lifts.When we came through the Keil Canal the fumes in our cabin were so bad we went on deck to get some fresh air.The fumes were obviously coming through the air con.We also were told by another couple that after phoning FOs head office in the middle of the night to report fumes they were eventually given another cabin. Come on Fred Olsen we all have to comply with the new regulations if we care about each other and especially our planet. Cost should not come into it.

There speaks someone with shedloads of wedge.

Cost always comes into it.

If we're talking smelly ships, the dear old Marco Polo must be in the list somewhere. God knows how anyone on deck 2 put up with the pong.