Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/246552 
Autor:innen: 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2019
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
OIES Paper: CE No. 1
Verlag: 
The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Oxford
Zusammenfassung: 
Shippers and refiners have been actively preparing for the IMO transition and engaged in a lively debate on how it would play out, and since the second half of 2019, making active preparations for it. Chinese refiners, however, seem to have been less preoccupied with it than their Western peers. This may seem surprising given that China holds the world’s second largest refining capacity behind the US, is home to six of the 10 largest container ports globally, and is an early adopter of tighter shipping fuel emission standards domestically. One key reason is that China’s domestic bunker market is small relative to its refining capacity and to other Asian hubs. At 20 Mt, it is about 2.5 time smaller than bunkering volumes at the port of Singapore alone (about 50 Mt). Of this 20 Mt, domestic bunkering account for 6-7Mt and bonded bunkering represents an additional 13 Mt. Yet the domestic tax system, which adds both consumer and value added taxes to bunker fuels, even for bonded sales, makes refinery based bunker fuels uncompetitive. It leaves blenders, who generally import about 90% of the material, mainly from Singapore and Malaysia, to dominate supplies. (...)
Schlagwörter: 
bunker fuels
China
Emissions
Gas
LNG
Oil
refining
Shipping
Persistent Identifier der Erstveröffentlichung: 
ISBN: 
978-1-78467-154-9
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.