Green flow of dry bulk

News

Contact

Eivind Dale
Senior Principal Consultant, DNV GL Maritime Advisory
Phone: +47 93 05 98 22
Email

Lars Erik Marcussen
Chartering Manager, HeidelbergCement Norway AS
Phone: +47 90 70 88 16
Email

Per-Kenneth Øye
Chief Logistics, Felleskjøpet Agri SA
Email

Tender documents

HC-FK information meetings presentation August/September 2020

Hydrogen

Transport system ship

Q&A

• 1. What are the physical restrictions for the vessel/ports? LOA, beam, draught, air draught?
  There are no such specific requirements. The vessel must be able to call all relevant ports, see the RfI, Appendix A ch. 5.
• 2. Is there a flexibility on speed? Or 10 knots rigid?
  10 knots is not a rigid requirement; this speed is common practice today. A service speed which entails less than 1 week roundtrip under normal conditions is a prerequisite.
• 3. Do you have any preferences with respect to hatch cover system? Pontoon vs. hydraulic foldable ones?
  Pontoon hatches are more common. We have no state of preference. This is a specific design question we leave to the designers/shipowners.
• 4. Do you prefer Norwegian ownership or is it never mind where the company has its roots from?
  There are no such restrictions or preferences. However, it should be noted that flag/nationality may have an impact on the extent to which one can obtain financial support from Norwegian or European public funds.
• 5. What about the contracts you already have with shipowners, continue as normal?
  Yes. Both HeidelbergCement and Felleskjøpet use several ships and will continue to use other available ships in the market besides this zero-emission vessel.
• 6. How long time would a typical port call be?
  Today typically loading time of a 5000 dwt vessel is 8-12 hrs, usually limited by de-ballasting capacity. Unloading time (self-discharging) is typically 12 hrs. Required cargo loading/unloading speed is minimum 500 tonnes of gravel per hour and minimum 300 tonnes of grain per hour (Ref. RfI, Appendix A ch. 6.2). Concepts which reduce port time is highly appreciated. It will be beneficial for fuel consumption, by allowing longer transit time and thereby reduced speed.
• 7. How important is energy efficiency for the ship? We assume important, since it is directly related to future fuel costs
  We assume very important. Fuel for a zero-emission ship will probably cost more than traditional fuels. Bidders must, therefore, propose energy-efficient hull and solutions to minimize fuel use. Optimal sailings speeds, minimal bunkering time and no or small deviations for fuel bunkering must be considered.
• 8. What weather conditions are accepted for discharging grain (amount of rain)?
  Discharging grain in rain/bad weather is a challenge and may lead to delays. No special requirements have been set in this project so far, but it will be addressed. Ref. RfI, appendix A ch. 4.
• 9. What is low season and high season of transport?
  Grain: High season is in the autumn, early summer is low season. Gravel/sand/building material: High season is typical early summer, low season is February. However, the seasonal variations are flattening out a bit.
• 10. What is the density of the bulk cargo?
  Density/load factor of gravel/building materials is typically 1,6-1,9 tons/m3, and of grain it varies between 0,45 tons/m3 (wheat) and 0,63 tons/m3 (oat).
• 11. Will you require self-discharging vessel?
  Yes
• 12. Shifting from gravel/stone to grain, can you clean hold(s) well enough to this effectively?
  This is done today as part of normal operation.
• 13. How many months do you estimate from signing the shipbuilding contract until delivery? It seems that it may not be sufficient time according to your plan taking into consideration the complexity of the newbuildings.
  The ambition, and we believe it is possible, is to have the ship in operation in 2023. Except for the new energy production technology onboard, the ship concept itself builds on known concepts. There are also projects in other ship segments that work with the same ambitions and similar schedules. However, HeidelbergCement and Felleskjøpet accept reality and will adjust the schedule if we find it necessary based on feedback from the bidders and progress in the project.
• 14. Is NOx emissions accepted?
  The project is not requiring zero emissions of NOX. However, there is a wish that local emissions of NOX, SOX and particles (PM) should be at a minimum (Ref. RfI, appendix A ch 6.3).
• 15. What kind of liquid fuel produced today would satisfy your need for free CO2 fuel?
  To our knowledge liquefied hydrogen, LOHC (Liquified Organic Hydrogen Carriers) and ammonia are available today. See also RfI ch. 2.3.
• 16. In the Request for Interest (RfI) it is specified that the ship is required to have no greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) at sea and in port. Are solutions with carbon neutral fuels as biofuels including HVO accepted?
  In this project, HeidelbergCement and Felleskjøpet have the ambition to drive technical innovation towards sustainable solutions, including the production of the fuel with this project. The ambition is also to pave the way for a new generation of green, standardized ships in the transport segment in question. Use of engines with combustion technology with biofuels, including HVO or synthetic natural gas, is not seen as a viable solution in this context and therefore not accepted for this project. GHG emissions under operation will not be accepted for this project (ref. RfI, ch. 2.3 and appendix A).
• 17. The added CAPEX value in the vessel price tag will be added to freight contracts I presume; otherwise, it is difficult to find a shipowner who can do it profitable with more expensive vessels?
  There will be a different economy with this vessel. HeidelbergCement and Felleskjøpet will give a long-term TC and take responsibility for vessel utilization and fuel cost. Public funding will be sought for both the development project and the financing of the ship/infrastructure. Together with shipowner and supplier of fuel and infrastructure, we will apply for Enova's funding support for investments in the ship and necessary onshore infrastructure.
• 18. According to some recent rough calculations (studies) about the cost of hydrogen in shipping for the next 20 years, the results show that the fuel consumption costs for a single trip from Oslo to Rogaland will be multiplied by approximately five times compared to today's price of diesel. Have you already taken these calculations into consideration, and if so, how will that affect this specific tender and of course the fares (rates) included?
  Future energy prices are uncertain and dependent on both market development and regulations. We expect that fuel for a zero-emission ship will probably cost more than traditional fuels, at least in the near future. Bidders must, therefore, propose energy-efficient hull and solutions to minimize fuel use. Optimal sailings speeds, minimal bunkering time and no or small deviations for fuel bunkering must be considered. Our calculations show that hydrogen/non-fossil fuels are economically feasible, especially when taking expectations of higher diesel prices in the future into account.
• 19. Will you also look at synergies with hydrogen production for this ship and Felleskjøpet's need for hydrogen for the land transport with the Nikola trucks?
  The need for hydrogen for land transport is not included in the ongoing tenders. However, this will probably be addressed at a later stage.
• 20. What duration have you considered for the fuel bunkering? Do you plan to load the cargo simultaneously?
  We do not know yet. It will be an outcome of selected fuel, bunker facilities and location, and the onboard tank solution. There will be an iteration between the fuel supply tender and the transport/ship tender. Ideally, bunkering is done in a port while loading or unloading, to avoid deviation and increased time in port. However, this is not a requirement for the fuel supplier.
• 21. Is it foreseen that shore power will be available for discharge at some ports?
  Yes, you can expect that shore power is available at the ports with the highest frequency and volumes (see RfI, appendix A ch. 5). Shore power is needed for port operation; primarily by electric excavator, hotel and for possibly charging of the battery.
• 22. Will you require the ship to sail directly from Rogaland to Oslo (or the other way), or will it be possible to go to shore for bunkering/charging?
  We are open to do necessary bunkering/charging in between. It is important that the vessel operates efficiently, and it is essential that the vessel can perform weekly roundtrips.
• 23. Do you plan for one or more bunkering locations? I.e., do you plan for bunkering in both Oslo and Rogaland, or only one location?
  At this point, we expect that there will be two bunkering points, probably one in the Oslofjord and one in Rogaland/Stavanger area. As a minimum, the vessel should be able to carry fuel for a one-way trip plus extra for safety. For your project offer in this phase, you may take this as a starting point. However, if your concept manages one bunkering per round trip, this will probably be beneficial for the total solution. The RfI, appendix A ch. 6.2 indicates bunker capacity of minimum 500 nautical miles, including port operation in normal operation and weather conditions. Ideally, bunkering is done in a port while loading or unloading, to avoid deviation and increased time in port. This is, however, not required in the "Request for Interest" for fuel supply and infrastructure. If the total cost of power is lower for bunkering in other areas, this will be preferred. Fuel suppliers are free to propose one or more bunkering points in the trading range. Multiple bunkering points will reduce the need for onboard storage and is therefore preferred if the impact on the fuel price is minor.