Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum Poly Shield Technologies Inc SHPR

GREY:SHPR - Post Discussion

Poly Shield Technologies Inc > sometin to read
View:
Post by jonggua on Nov 22, 2013 5:15pm

sometin to read

Q:Hi Jacob, How much has been really been done about SOx, NOx and PM on the new 12,000TEU plus vessels , as the old once where emitting as much SOx, NOX and PM as 50 million Cars per vessel, looking at you owned fleet of 189 units the SOx & NOx out put corresponds to about 5.6 billion cars or 9 times the total global fleet of cars, if we then add the other 300 vessels on charter you are at about 15 billion cars or 25 x 850 million cars..! yes there are SECAS in 3% of the Voyage with low sulphur fuel , which makes 1 vessel as much as 25 million cars .. But there is a Clear link to Ocean acidification and Arctic Ice melt off from shipping Soot see link https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=37455 Why keep talking about Co2 when SOx, NOx and PM is the real cause of concern I where CO2 comes later..? Not to mention the sever impact on Health What really dose puzzles me here, why when you had the choice on the new EEE did you no go for the Environment, I mean just those vessel alone account for nearly the total Global Car fleet in SOx, NOx and PM ..??? Best Jorn Winkler - See more at: https://www.maersklineroute2.com/askjacob#sthash.zCP7whQq.dpuf

A:MAERSK The fuel used for ships has much more sulphur content than fuels used for land transportation, so while ships are much more energy efficient than cars and trucks, the SOx pollution caused by shipping is much greater. Not sure I think a direct comparison between a car used in a city and a ship crossing the pacific ocean makes a lot of sense, but clearly SOx emissions from shipping is an issue that needs to be adressed. As mentioned in the response to your other question, we believe the only efficient global solution is global regulation. Individual shipping lines can take a lead, but if we - for example- were to switch to low sulphur fuels across the board, our fuel cost would increase with several billion USD per year, which would drive us out of business very quickly and leave the market to others who are not switching and therefore are more competitive. That would not benefit the environment. - See more at: https://www.maersklineroute2.com/askjacob#sthash.zCP7whQq.dpuf

Q: Jacob, Not installing Scrubbers when you had the chance APM representing 8 billion Cars in SOx NOx & PM was a terrible mistake which will haunt you & Shipping ..? Forget SECAS, these shipping emissions are the key source of death in the EU and US, we need at least 1000 mile zones ( At least IARC Scientific Publication No. 161 Air Pollution and Cancer Editors: Kurt Straif, Aaron Cohen, and Jonathan Samet https://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/books/sp161/index.php eISBN 978-92-832-2161-6 ISSN 0300-5085 ABOUT THIS BOOK Emissions from motor vehicles, industrial processes, power generation, the household combustion of solid fuel, and other sources pollute the ambient air across the globe. The precise chemical and physical features of ambient air pollution, which comprises a myriad of individual chemical constituents, vary around the world due to differences in the sources of pollution, climate, and meteorology, but the mixtures of ambient air pollution invariably contain specific chemicals known to be carcinogenic to humans. Recent estimates suggest that the disease burden due to air pollution is substantial. Exposure to ambient fine particles was recently estimated to have contributed 3.2 million premature deaths worldwide in 2010, due largely to cardiovascular disease, and 223 000 deaths from lung cancer. More than half of the lung cancer deaths attributable to ambient fine particles were projected to have been in China and other East Asian countries. The IARC Monographs Programme convened a multidisciplinary Advisory Group that included epidemiologists, toxicologists, atmospheric scientists, cancer biologists, and regulators to make recommendations for the development of a series of Monographs on air pollution. This book provides the updated state-of-the-art overviews from this Advisory Group on topics related to exposure characterization, atmospheric and engineering sciences, epidemiological studies on cancer, results of pertinent cancer bioassays, and data elucidating potential mechanisms of carcinogenicity of compounds related to air pollution - See more at: https://www.maersklineroute2.com/askjacob#sthash.zCP7whQq.dpuf

A: I cannot comment or confirm on all the data presented above. We are well aware of the fact that air pollution caused by SOx, NOx and PM is a significant challenge to shipping that we need to address as an industry. We support emission control areas (ECAs), and we support that IMO and others develop regulation that reduces air pollution while at the same time ensuring a level playing field for all. Scrubbers are not yet commercially available, but we have prepared the Triple-E ships for potential later installation. - See more at: https://www.maersklineroute2.com/askjacob#sthash.zCP7whQq.dpuf
Comment by Popeye82 on Jan 03, 2014 10:32pm
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by jonggua on Jan 07, 2014 12:03am
I just read a couple of january 2014 shipping news articles that said everyone is just gonna buy mgo and wait, not retrofit with scrubbers. Seems there is no rush to add scrubbers, which seems odd to me. anyway,the scrubber market is really really small and can in no way handle the volumes of ships that may want our technology. interesting 2014, either they bomb or soar it would seem. Not happy ...more  
The Market Update
{{currentVideo.title}} {{currentVideo.relativeTime}}
< Previous bulletin
Next bulletin >

At the Bell logo
A daily snapshot of everything
from market open to close.

{{currentVideo.companyName}}
{{currentVideo.intervieweeName}}{{currentVideo.intervieweeTitle}}
< Previous
Next >
Dealroom for high-potential pre-IPO opportunities