1. bookVolume 19 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)
Journal Details
First Published
20 Mar 2000
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Open Access

Maritime Energy Contracting for Clean Shipping

Published Online: 20 Feb 2018
Volume & Issue: Volume 19 (2018) - Issue 1 (March 2018)
Page range: 31 - 44
Journal Details
First Published
20 Mar 2000
Publication timeframe
4 times per year

1. Abadie, L. M., Goicoechea, N. and Galarraga, I. (2017) Adapting the shipping sector to stricter emissions regulations: Fuel switching or installing a scrubber? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 57, pp.237-250.Search in Google Scholar

2. Acciaro, M. (2014). Real options analysis for environmental compliance: LNG and emission control areas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, pp.41-50.10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.007Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

3. Angelidis, T. and Skiadopoulos, G. (2008) Measuring the market risk of freight rates: A value-at-risk approach. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 11(05), pp.447-469. 4.10.1142/S0219024908004889Search in Google Scholar

4. Atari, S. and Prause, G. (2018) Risk assessment of emission abatement technologies for clean shipping. In: Kabashkin, I., Yatskiv, I., Prentkovskis, O. (Ed.). Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication.17th International Multi-Conference “Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication” (RelSTat2017) Riga. October 18-21, 2017. Berlin: Springer. (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems.Search in Google Scholar

5. Baker, H.K. and Haslem, J.A. (1974) The impact of investor socioeconomic characteristics on risk and return preferences. Journal of Business Research, 2(4), pp. 469-476.10.1016/0148-2963(74)90032-0Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

6. Bas, G., De Boo, K., Vaes-Van de Hulsbeek, A. M. and Nikolic, I. (2017) MarPEM: An agent based model to explore the effects of policy instruments on the transition of the maritime fuel system away from HFO. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 55, 162-174.10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.017Search in Google Scholar

7. Basak, S. and Shapiro, A. (2001) Value-at-risk-based risk management: optimal policies and asset prices. The review of financial studies, 14(2), pp.371-405.10.1093/rfs/14.2.371Search in Google Scholar

8. Bergqvist, R., Turesson, M. and Weddmark, A. (2015) Sulphur emission control areas and transport strategies-the case of Sweden and the forest industry. European Transport Research Review, 7(2), pp.10.10.1007/s12544-015-0161-9Search in Google Scholar

9. Bertoldi, P., Rezessy, S. and Vine, E. (2006) Energy service companies in European countries: Current status and a strategy to foster their development. Energy Policy, 34(14), pp.1818-1832.10.1016/j.enpol.2005.01.010Search in Google Scholar

10. Bleyl, J. W. (2011). Conservation first! The new integrated energy-contracting model to combine energy efficiency and renewable supply in large buildings and industry. ECEEE summer Studies, Paper ID, 485.Search in Google Scholar

11. Boons, F. and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013) Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, pp.9-19.10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007Search in Google Scholar

12. CE Delft (2017) Assessment of Fuel Oil Availability. Final report Delft, July 2016 www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/assessment_of_fuel_oil_availability/1858. Access 05/10/2017Search in Google Scholar

13. Chesbrough, H. (2010) Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long range planning, 43(2), pp.354-363.10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

14. Daduna, J.R. and Prause, G. (2017) The Baltic Sea as a Maritime Highway in International Multimodal Transport. In Operations Research Proceedings 2015, Springer, pp.189-194.10.1007/978-3-319-42902-1_25Search in Google Scholar

15. Dowd, K. (2007) Measuring market risk. John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

16. EMSA (2010) European Maritime safety Agency Annual 2010 Report. Retrieved May 10, 2016 from www.emsa.europa.eu/emsa-documents/download/1421/143/23.html.Search in Google Scholar

17. Goldman, C.A., Hopper, N.C. and Osborn, J.G. (2005) Review of US ESCO industry market trends: an empirical analysis of project data. Energy policy, 33(3), pp.387-405.10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.008Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

18. Gu, Y. and Wallace, S. W. (2017) Scrubber: A potentially overestimated compliance method for the Emission Control Areas: The importance of involving a ship’s sailing pattern in the evaluation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 55, pp.51-66.10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.024Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

19. Hämäläinen, E., Hilmola, O.P., Prause, G. and Tolli, A. (2016) Forecasting maritime logistics costs – Will the low oil price remain? In A. Serry and L. Lévêque (Eds.). Le transport maritime à courte distance (Short-Sea Shipping), Devport 2016 Conference, pp. 19-34. Le Havre, France: EMS Geodif.Search in Google Scholar

20. Hendricks, D. (1997). Evaluation of value-at-risk models using historical data. Economic Policy Review, 2(1).Search in Google Scholar

21. Herbst, A.F. (2003) Capital asset investment: strategy, tactics and tools. John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

22. Horbach, J., Rammer, C. and Rennings, K. (2012) Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact—the role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecological economics, 78, pp.112-122.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

23. IMO (2015) Guidance on the application of regulation 13 of MARPOL annex VI Tier III requirements to dual fuel and gas-fuelled engines. MEPC.1/Circ.854. London. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/MEPC-70-2020sulphur.aspx. Accessed 2016/11/30.Search in Google Scholar

24. IMO (2016) IMO sets 2020 date for ships to comply with low sulphur fuel oil requirement. Press briefing release 28/10/2016. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/MEPC-70-2020sulphur.aspx Accessed 30/11/2016.Search in Google Scholar

25. Jiang, L., Kronbak, J. and Christensen, L.P. (2014) The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: Sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, pp.19-27.10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.005Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

26. Jorion, P. (2006) Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

27. Kvale, S. (2008) Doing interviews. Book 2 of The SAGE qualitative research kit.10.4135/9781849208963Search in Google Scholar

28. Lindstad, H. E. and Eskeland, G. S. (2016) Environmental regulations in shipping: Policies leaning towards globalization of scrubbers deserve scrutiny. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 47, pp. 67-76.10.1016/j.trd.2016.05.004Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

29. Lindstad, H., Sandaas, I. and Strømman, A. H. (2015) Assessment of cost as a function of abatement options in maritime emission control areas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 38, pp.41-48.10.1016/j.trd.2015.04.018Search in Google Scholar

30. Linsmeier, T. J. and Pearson, N. D. (2000) Value at risk. Financial Analysts Journal, 56(2), pp.47-67.10.2469/faj.v56.n2.2343Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

31. McGrath, R.G. (2010) Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long range planning, 43(2), pp.247-261.10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.005Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

32. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldana, J. (1984) Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverly Hills.Search in Google Scholar

33. North (2016) China: Emission Control Areas. Retrieved from http://www.nepia.com/news/industry-news/china-emission-control-areas-starupdatestar/. Accessed 22.12.2016.Search in Google Scholar

34. Notteboom, T. (2010) The impact of low sulphur fuel requirements in shipping on the competitiveness of roro shipping in Northern Europe. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 10(1), pp.63–95.Search in Google Scholar

35. Nugraha, F. (2009) Effective implementation of emission control area towards cleaner shipping operations: focusing on sulphur oxides (SOx) emission reduction (2009).World Maritime University Dissertations. 186.Search in Google Scholar

36. OECD/ITF (2016) Reducing Sulphur Emissions from Ships: The Impact of International Regulation.http://www.itf-oecd.org/reducing-sulphur-emissions-ships-impact-international-regulation. Accessed 10/06/2016.Search in Google Scholar

37. Olaniyi, E., Gerber, P. and Prause (2018) Strategic Energy Partnership in Shipping. Risk assessment of emission abatement technologies for clean shipping. In: Kabashkin, I., Yatskiv, I., Prentkovskis, O. (Ed.). Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication.17th International Multi-Conference “Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication” (RelSTat2017) Riga. October 18-21, 2017. Berlin: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

38. Olaniyi, E., Prause, G. and Boyesen, J. (2018) The impact of SECA regulations on clean shipping in the BSR: First empiric results from EnviSuM project. In: Ölçer, A.I., Kitada, M., Dalaklis, D., Ballini, F. (Ed.). Trends and Challenges in Maritime Energy Management. 2017 International Conference on Maritime Energy Management, Malmo, Sweden, 24-25 January 2017. Springer. (WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs.10.1007/978-3-319-74576-3_22Search in Google Scholar

39. Olaniyi, E. O. (2017) Towards EU 2020: An Outlook of SECA Regulations Implementation in the BSR. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 7(2), pp.182-207.10.1515/bjes-2017-0016Search in Google Scholar

40. Olaniyi, E.O. and Viirmäe, M. (2016) The Economic Impact of Environmental Regulations on a Maritime Fuel Production Company. Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe, 8(2) pp.58-84.Search in Google Scholar

41. Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2009) Business Model Creation. Modderman Drukwerk: Amsterdam.Search in Google Scholar

42. Panagakos, G.P., Stamatopoulou, E.V. and Psaraftis, H.N. (2014) The possible designation of the Mediterranean Sea as a SECA: A case study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, pp.74-90.10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.010Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

43. Patricksson, Ø. and Erikstad, S.O. (2017) A two-stage optimization approach for sulphur emission regulation compliance. Maritime Policy & Management, 44(1), pp.94-111.10.1080/03088839.2016.1237781Search in Google Scholar

44. Platts (2016) The IMO’s 2020 Global Sulfur Cap: What A 2020 Sulfur-Constrained World Means for Shipping Lines, Refineries and Bunker Suppliers. https://www.platts.com/IM.Platts.../SR-IMO-2020-Global-sulfur-cap-102016.pdf. Accessed 12/12/2016Search in Google Scholar

45. Plouffe, S., Lanoie, P., Berneman, C. and Vernier, M. F. (2011) Economic benefits tied to eco-design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(6), pp. 573-579.10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

46. Prause, G. and Olaniyi E.O. (2017) The impact of environmental regulations on the regional development in Eastern Estonia. New Challenges of Economic and Business Development - 2017: Riga, May 18th – 20th, 2017. Ed. Muravska, T. Riga: Latvian State UniversitySearch in Google Scholar

47. Ren, J. and Lützen, M. (2015) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for technology selection for emissions reduction from shipping under uncertainties. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 40, pp. 43-60.10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.012Search in Google Scholar

48. Ross, S.A., Westerfield, R., Jaffe, J.F. and Roberts, G.S. (2002) Corporate finance (Vol. 7). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Search in Google Scholar

49. Schinas, O. and Stefanakos, C. N. (2012) Cost assessment of environmental regulation and options for marine operators. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 25, pp.81-99.10.1016/j.trc.2012.05.002Search in Google Scholar

50. Siggelkow, N. (2007) Persuasion with case studies. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), pp.20-24.10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160882Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

51. Sorrell, S. (2007) The economics of energy service contracts. Energy Policy, 35(1), pp.507-521.10.1016/j.enpol.2005.12.009Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

52. Stopford M. (2009) Maritime economics, Routledge 2nd Edition, London and New York.10.4324/9780203891742Search in Google Scholar

53. Sys, C., Vanelslander, T., Adriaenssens, M. and Van Rillaer, I. (2016) International emission regulation in sea transport: Economic feasibility and impact. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 45, pp.139-151.10.1016/j.trd.2015.06.009Search in Google Scholar

54. TE (2017a) Consumer Price Index/Estonia. https://tradingeconomics.com/estonia/consumer-price-index-cpi accessed 1.11.2017.Search in Google Scholar

55. TE (2017b) Labour costs/Estonia.https://tradingeconomics.com/estonia/labour-costs. Accessed 1.11.2017.Search in Google Scholar

56. Wiśnicki, B., Czermański, E., Droździecki, S., Matczak, M. and Spangenberg, E. (2014) Sulphur Regulation–technology solutions and economic consequences for the Baltic Sea Region shipping market. In: Ernest Czermański (ed) Institute of Maritime Transport and Seaborne Trade, University of Gdańsk.Search in Google Scholar

57. WoodMackenze (2016) Global marine fuel sulphur cap - challenges of a 2020 implementation. https://www.woodmac.com/reports/refining-and-oil-products-global-marine-fuel-sulphur-cap-challenges-of-a-2020-implementation-43374172. Accessed on 30.11.2016.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo