In January 2015, the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA)
regulations changed so that ships that ply the Baltic Sea and the North
Sea can no longer use bunker fuel that exceeds 0.1 per cent v/v of
sulphur. Many changes have been seen in the maritime sector, especially
in the Baltic Sea region (BSR). From studies, the impact is still
somewhat negative for some maritime stakeholders, such as small-scale
fuel producing companies who must produce fuel that complies with the
SECA requirements. The impact analysis of their compliance options shows
that hydrodesulphurisation (HDS) option is the most viable option with a
commensurable investment return rate, but it is highly risky and
expensive considering the incessant plummeting of fuel price and the
financial status of such companies.

However, even though the
situation looks bleak for the small-scale maritime fuel producers, a
deeper probe revealed a chance for exceptional opportunities for growth
and profit through a change of business model to the maritime
energy-contracting model (MEC). The study zooms in on a case study of a
fuel producing company and empirically compares the operating costs of
the MEC model (as a decentralised option) and the HDS process (as a
centralised option) to determine which option will be most economically
worthwhile if adopted as a SECA compliance strategy to ensure a rounded
and robust choice-making process for maritime stakeholders in such
situations.