O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a navegar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nosso Contrato do Usuário e nossa Política de Privacidade.
O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a utilizar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nossa Política de Privacidade e nosso Contrato do Usuário para obter mais detalhes.
Poly Shield Technologies Incorporated SHPR - Equities.com Research Report
Stock symbol: SHPR Total Shares Outstanding: 187.84m
Stock price 07/23/13: $.29 Exchange: OTCBB
52-week price range: $.08-$1.01 Equity market capitalization: $21.8mm
Recent News Stock Price & Chart SEC Filings
Polyshield Technologies, led by CEO Rasmus Norling, the world’s foremost expert on emission
abatement technologies, is primed to become a major player in a 750 billion dollar marine
emission industry. Their DSOX-15 scrubber is cheaper, smaller and easier to install than the
other options in the industry. Upcoming government regulations should force ship to consider
options like the ones Polyshield is offering.
Agreement with LMS Ship management Inc. of Mobile, Alabama for multiple
installations of the DSOX-15 Fuel Purification System, July 24…read more
Polyshield Technologies schedules cruise ship survey…read more
Polyshield Technologies Inc. has completed the inspection portion of a two ship
Polyshield Technologies Inc. schedule multiple ship surveys for DSOX-15…read more
Polyshield Technologies Inc. enters into negotiations with two Maritime
The sulfur content of ships’ emissions needs to be reduced from 1% to 0.1% by 2015 in
the Emission Controlled Areas; and to 0.5% by 2020 worldwide;
Stock Symbol : SHPR
Three options for ships: change from Heavy Fuel Oil to Marine Gas Oil, use scrubbers, or
choose Liquefied Natural Gas.
Market Growth Drivers
Regulation for ECA zones in northern Europe and the United States go into effect in
2015, thereby forcing ships to change their emission standards.
The international regulations going into effect in 2020 for all ships regardless of
location should cement emission abatement as a quarter of a trillion dollar industry.
Currently five companies can produce roughly 50 scrubbers per year, however; with
65,000 ships worldwide, demand will outpace supply.
With size and cost being primary problems in the current scrubber industry, a new
solution is needed.
Rising fuel costs will eventually force ships to search for alternate solutions to
Marine Gas Oil.
With the global economy beginning to recover, shipping, a highly elastic industry in certain
regards, is beginning to come around.
However, new regulations from the International Maritime Organization will change the way
ships deal with carbon emissions permanently. The sulfur content needs to be limited to .1%
(down from 1% which was only recently instituted in 2012) by 2015 in all ECA zones, which are
primarily around the Nordic countries and the United States, and to .5% worldwide by 2020.
Since the shipping industry currently operates on Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), which does not meet
the requirements, they will have to make considerable changes to comply with the new rules.
As of today, there are a few realistic options.
Ships can shift to the more efficient Marine Gas Oil, they can install some kind of scrubber
(whether fuel or exhaust), or they can switch to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Each approach
has its benefits and caveats, which we will explore over the course of this report.
After examining the current state of the industry, we will delve into the unique fuel scrubbing
technology that Polyshield is currently working on. We will attempt to establish whether this is
the most viable option for the shipping industry moving forward.
Stock Symbol : SHPR
In order to offer the most robust research possible, we will be using an ECA cost calculator
provided by Intertanko and proprietary statistical and Monte Carlo Models from the Equities
Group Research Team.
Current Emission Regulations
ECAs are pockets of water located within 200 miles of the coasts of the United States,
Canada, and Northern Europe;
The new regulation is compulsory; ships that are in violation of these laws are subject to
On July 15, 2011 the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a subsidiary of the United
Nations formed in 1948 with 167 member countries to ensure maritime safety, made a seismic
change in environmental protocols moving forward.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) instituted
the North American Emission Control Area (ECA) on August 1st
, 2012. The ECAs are pockets of
water located within 200 miles of the coasts of the United States, Canada, and Northern
Europe. Within these ECAs, the IMO dictates that the SOx content of fuel oil can be no more
than 1.00% (10,000 parts per million). Starting January 1st
, 2015, this number drops down to
0.1% (1). In contrast, outside of the ECA zones, the number is 3.5%.
However, this number will be reduced to 0.5% on January 1st
, 2020 meaning that the entire
world will essentially become one large ECA zone with an emission requirement of 0.5% except
for the previously mentioned areas around the U.S., Canada, and Europe which will still have a
0.1% emission limit for Sulphur (3).
Through these emission standards, the IMO is making a concentrated effort to reduce toxic
pollutants including not just SOx, but also NOx and PM. It seems like a difficult task to enforce
all the ships in the world to comply with these regulations in less than 8 years, but ships will
face stiff penalties if they do not comply. Upon docking at any port, vessels will be inspected by
either the coast guards of that particular state or the Port State Control (PSC).
Both the Coast Guard and PSC ensure that the arriving vessel is in compliance with all
international maritime laws. Ships that are in violation of these laws are subject to detainment
Stock Symbol : SHPR
until the vessel’s problems can be fixed to be in accord with international law. For more
information see the IMO website here.
Emission Abatement Options
MGO is only a viable solution when the ships age is beyond the payback period of an
alternative solution, and the cost remains at a realistic level.
Infrastructure is inadequate for wide use of LNG; conversion into LNG is too costly, LNG
vessels will likely be in the form of new builds.
Exhaust gas scrubbers have long installation periods and are very large; the cost can be
insurmountable for ships with multiple engines.
Simply switching to MGO is a viable option for many companies. Currently the spread between
HFO and MGO is roughly $290.00, so the expenses can become significant but only if the ship
sails a large portion of its route in ECA controlled waters.
In addition, the cost of an exhaust scrubber can be upwards of $5,000,000.00 and requires in
some cases a month of dry dock and costly space to install. MGO is a viable solution for ships
that do not sail in ECA waters on a regular basis (we have defined regular basis as upwards of
15% of their time), have a older fleet with less than 10 years average life left, and can adjust
their costs elsewhere to make up for the increased fuel price.
An example of the last reason would be a cargo ship that can simply increase the cost of its
cargo by a small amount. It is the opinion of this report that this category of ships are unlikely
to change to LNG or a scrubber solution.
If we assume that payback period for a new fuel solution must be at least less than the
remaining life of the ship, then a $6,000,000.00 cost (assuming 330 days at sea, 9% hurdle rate,
25% or more in ECA waters, 50 tons of fuel/day, current HFO cost and a $250.00 spread) would
only interest ships with at least 12 years of remaining life. It is important to note that for the
purposes of this paper, a $250.00 spread is being used, the actual spread is closer to $300.00 as
of late July. A basis zone at $250.00 will give us an excellent comparative number as it seems to
be a mean reverting statistic.
However, the average age of the worlds cargo carrying fleet is 19 years old (6), and the average
age of cruise ships is only 12, and less than 5% are over 20 years. Due to the boom in
Stock Symbol : SHPR
production during the 2004-2007 range, the shipping fleet is quite young (average ships have a
lifespan of 30 years or more).
In addition, the current spread on fuel consumption is not likely to continue. As MGO becomes
more in demand due to the forced change, the spread will likely rise towards 400 or 500.
If we shift our assumption to a spread of 450, then a ship only needs a remaining life of 4.5
years to achieve ROI. For the 8% of the worlds cargo fleet that spends virtually 100% of their
time in ECA controlled waters, MGO is simply not a cost effective option.
A scrubber solution pays back in less than a year for a 100% ECA ship and a $450.00 spread on
HFO-MGO and 1.7 years for the current $250.00 spread. Since the average time spent in the
ECA for merchant/cargo ships is 18% (translates to more than a 20 year payback period), MGO
will still be a dominant option for a bulk of the cargo fleet, but if the fuel spread rises above 500
to 600 (not an unrealistic assumption), the scrubber/LNG option becomes palatable at a
roughly 5 year payback period.
Stock Symbol : SHPR
The LNG option has been talked about for many years in the shipping industry. Not only is the
price roughly $300.00 cheaper than HFO and some $550.00 cheaper than MGO, it provides a
much cleaner alternative by reducing total emissions more than 90%. What is strongly debated
about the option is the price, both monetary and economic.
Initially, ECO LNG ships are much more expensive to build, with costs rising more than 10%. In
addition, assuming that they are built, there is still the question of where to get fuel. Currently
there is a stalemate going on between LNG providers and users. Shipping companies do not
want to purchase LNG ships because they are skeptical of the infrastructure, and LNG
infrastructure is skeptical about the demand.
Government intervention could possibly break the stalemate, but there is nothing planned at
this time. Maritime Cleantech Market group MEC Intelligence estimates that more than 5% of
the world fleet will be LNG powered by 2020, but we have been unable to verify these findings
or find another estimate in that range.
While LNG might be the fuel of the future, it does not seem to have the infrastructure to
support a short term revolution. Small pockets of the industry are likely to adopt it, but it will
be a slow process without significant government support. In addition, conversion to LNG is
simply too costly, the only LNG ships will likely be in the form of new builds.
Scrubbers are the final option we will discuss. Since the Polyshield fuel scrubber is so unique,
we will leave its discussion for the next section and focus on the more widely used exhaust
scrubbers. Effectively, an exhaust scrubber is the equivalent to a large sieve, it extracts sulfur
Stock Symbol : SHPR
directly from the emissions released from the ship. The ship is then allowed to use traditional
HFO fuel, and is compliant with emission regulations when it decides to turn the scrubber on.
There are however, significant issues with the current line of exhaust scrubbers. The first is the
applicability. Since the exhaust scrubber needs to be placed on every engine, it has effectively
eliminated the multiple engine cruise ships. The cost can go from $5,000,000.00 for one
scrubber to more than $20,000,000.00.
The second is the scrubbers installation costs
both monetarily and economically. While
different estimates exist as to how long it
would take to fully install, most agree that a
six month period is fair.
Over the course of that time, the ship is dry
docked, cannot earn revenue, and is bleeding
money in the form of installation costs.
Also, even if the ship has successfully placed a
scrubber on board, it needs to still carry MGO
fuel in case the scrubber malfunctions. This adds to the already exacerbated problem of space
with the scrubber, it is extremely large.
The issue of an exhaust scrubber is not just technical though, there are considerations that go
beyond how much money the industry may or may not save. The installation of an exhaust
scrubber is a large project, one that takes time and a tremendous amount of labor and capital.
Even if a ship has an estimated lifespan of 10 years, and the exhaust scrubber has a payback
period of 9, the ship may not install it. While this seems to go against basic economics, the
question of legal regulations offers some explanation.
The current maritime emissions requirements set to go into effect in 2015 are likely set in
stone, the shipping industry has been preparing for quite some time, but; the regulations for
worldwide emissions set to go into effect in 2020 are not looked upon with nearly as much
Stock Symbol : SHPR
According to the IMO, if the shipping industry is deemed “not ready” by 2018, the regulation
can be pushed back another five years to 2025. The .5% sulfur requirement by 2020 would
bring widespread applications to the “alternative emissions” industry, effectively every ship
would now be on an emission regulated route.
So if the shipping industry believes that they may have five extra years to make a decision, it
would change their prospects for future spending. They may either wait until 2018 to make a
decision about an exhaust scrubber, or convert to LNG early to become effectively “regulation
proof”. When government regulation is in question, cost benefit analysis is unfortunately rarely
an exact science.
Polyshield Technologies Background
A new solution: the DSOX-15 fuel purification system, aims to capture 25% of a market
in the next five years.
The DSOX-15 is cheaper, smaller and easier to install than traditional scrubbers.
Polyshield Technologies aims to lock up 50 contracts by the end of the year.
The CEO of Polyshield, Rasmus Norling, was the head of Research Development at Royal
Caribbean Cruise Lines and is currently the world’s foremost expert on marine emission
Polyshield Technologies operates as a research and development company that provides a cost-
efficient, environmental solution to the new maritime protocols set to take place in January
2015. Their solution is a fuel purification system: one that washes the ship’s fuels of harmful
Sulphur Oxide (SOx).
Led by their new CEO Rasmus Norling, Polyshield Technologies, within the next five years, aims
to capture 25% of a market consisting of 65,000 ships worldwide all of which will be affected by
the new emission standards. Mr. Norling, who joined Polyshield Technologies in February 2013,
brings with him a wealth of expertise.
Formerly the manager of Research & Development for Marine Technical Services at Royal
Caribbean Cruise Lines, Mr. Norling is considered the world’s foremost expert on marine-
emissions treatment-systems for the removal of SOx, NOx, and CO2. (13) While at Royal
Caribbean, Mr. Norling invented the first fuel scrubber: designed to remove sodium from fuel
before it entered the gas turbine.
Stock Symbol : SHPR
The initial fuel scrubber undoubtedly gave way to his newest invention with Polyshield
Technologies: the DSOX-15 fuel purification system which removes sulfur from the fuel.
Polyshield Technologies aims to lock up 50 contracts with an array of vessels by the end of the
DSOX-15 Fuel Purification System
The DSOX-15 provides a tremendous advantage to ships with multiple engines.
The fuel scrubber only needs 1 month to install, comparing to 6 months or more for the
Small Enough to transport in a box.
Let’s begin to discuss the DSOX-15 fuel purification system that Polyshield Technologies is
purporting. Initially, the CEO Rasmus Norling developed a sodium scrubber for Royal Caribbean
cruise liners. The scrubber was the solution to a problem of engine wear.
Over time, that evolved in the bio fuel scrubber we have today. While most scrubbers deal with
the exhaust that comes out of the ship, the DSOX-15 deals with the fuel before it gets to the
There are significant advantages to this approach. The first is based on cost. The Polyshield
DSOX-15 costs around $6,000,000.00 according to an interview transcript with Mr. Norling, and
the exhaust scrubbers are roughly the same.
However, the exhaust scrubber needs to be installed multiple times for a ship that has multiple
engines, the DSOX-15 needs to be installed once regardless of the number of engines. This
advantage is more pronounced in the cruise ship industry where the typical vessel has upwards
of 4-5 engines.
Let’s use the Oasis of the Sea, currently one of the largest cruise ship, as an extreme example.
She has six engines, consumes 672 tons of fuel per day, and spends around 210 days per year in
the ocean (30 trips per year *average trip length of 7 days). In addition we will assume the
standard 9% hurdle rate, current HFO costs and a spread of $250.00.
With an exhaust scrubber cost of $24,000,000.00 ($4,000,000.00 per scrubber multiplied by six
engines, a very conservative estimate), and the average 20% time spent in the ECA, the payback
Stock Symbol : SHPR
period is 5.2 years. If we now compare that to the DSOX-15 cost of $6,000,000.00 keeping all
other assumptions the same, we have a payback period of 1 year.
The second advantage of the DSOX-15 is the initial set up. We mentioned the difficulty
regarding exhaust scrubbers. Not only are they very large (which for a shipping vessel costs
them money in the form of space for cargo), but they can take up to a year to fully install. In
addition, while the scrubber is being installed, the ship must wait in dry dock, and large
amounts of money must be spent on labor. The cost is thus increased by whatever lost profits
the ship would have made over the installation period. The DSOX-15 on the other hand is not
only small enough to fit in a box, but it can be installed over a period of 30 days. The savings
here can become very significant if the ship is larger and the installation is more complex.
Stock Symbol : SHPR
While Polyshield Technologies does have a unique advantage, other companies like Alfa
Laval, EcoSpec, Wartsila, and Dupont, have developed exhaust scrubbers.
o Distributes a hybrid exhaust scrubber capable of 98% removal of SOx from fuel
(“Exhaust Gas Cleaning, Pure SOx”).
o Scrubber has been successfully tested on cargo ships and uses 1.5% of the
engine power in the ship (“Exhaust Gas Cleaning, Pure SOx”).
o Scrubber is a 3 in 1 emission abatement system that reduces levels of SOx, NOx,
and CO2 (“CSNOX”).
o Tested on a cargo ship in 2008, removal of sulfur was 93%, which is less than
competing products, which remove 98% or 99% of the SOx in the emissions
o Produces a hybrid exhaust gas scrubber specializing in the removal of SOx
(“Wartsila Hybrid Scrubber System”).
o Also has a separate machine that specializes in the removal of NOx
o (“Wartsila Hybrid Scrubber System”).
o Closed loop scrubber was installed on a cargo ship in 2011 (“Wartsila Hybrid
o Scrubber can operate for many years uninterrupted so there are no concerns
with maintenance shutdowns while at sea (“Dupont Belco…”).
o High efficiency pollutant removal that meets all IMO regulations (“Dupont
o The product is yet to be installed on any vessel (“Dupont Belco…”).
Stock Symbol : SHPR
The Technology isn’t yet compliant with ECA emissions, expected to be ready by Q1
The 0.5% sulphur emission regulation for the world may not go into effect until 2025.
The government can help fund the building of LNG bunkering, good for the LNG
The risks involved with Polyshield are more qualitative than quantitative. The technology
developed by Mr. Norling is proprietary, however; according to an interview transcript, it is not
completely compliant with current ECA emission standards. While the technology is expected
to be ready by Q1 2014, and it is being developed by a man with an excellent reputation in the
industry, the final result as always remains to be seen.
The main risk is in the government regulation. While the 2015 regulations are likely already set
in stone, the 2020 global emission requirements could be delayed five years. This creates
uncertainty in the shipping industry and may prevent many companies from making any large
The profitability and payback period of the scrubber solution depends significantly on the time
spent in ECA waters and the spread on HFO-MGO. While neither are likely to change
significantly from current trends over the next 10 years, there is always a risk.
Lastly, although LNG does not currently have the infrastructure to sustain a major change,
larger governments could always fund the building of LNG bunkering to create the change. This
is not a likely scenario, but one to consider nonetheless.
CEO: Rasmus Norling, the former Manager of Research and Development for Marine
Technical Services at Royal Caribbean. Mr. Norling is widely accepted to be the current
foremost opinion on marine emission abatement systems.
CFO: John da Costa currently serves on the board of more than five companies and
brings a wealth of experience to Polyshield.
Director: Mitchell Reed Miller has been in the financial services industry since 2001 and
is currently the director of Polyshield Technologies. He is a co-founder of Hermosa
Capital Management LLC and received his B.A. from UCLA in 1995.
Stock Symbol : SHPR
Address: Polyshield Technologies, Inc. Boca Raton, FL 33432
CEO: Rasmus Norling
Web Site: www.polyshieldtechnologies.com
State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization: Florida
Transfer Agent: Pacific Stock Transfer Company, Las Vegas, NV
Investor contact: 800-648-4287
Francis Gaskins Nicholas Bhandari
Director of Research Quantitative Research Analyst
(310) 576-2422 (310) 576-2422
 "Designation of Emission Control Area to Reduce Emissions From Ships in the U.S.
Caribbean." EPA.gov. Environmental Protection Agency, July 2011. Web. 11 July 2013.
 Aagesen, Jesper. "Lloyd's Register LNG Bunkering Infrastructure Study." Lr.org. Lloyd's
Register, Feb. 2012. Web. 11 July 2013.
 ”Global Trade and Fuels Assessment—Additional ECA Modeling Scenarios.” EPA.gov.
Environmental Protection Agency, May 2009. Web. 11 July 2013.
Stock Symbol : SHPR
 Eckenweiler, Brad, and Rasmus Norling. "Polyshield Technology 30 Minute Interview."
Telephone interview. 9 July 2013.
 ”Price of U.S. Natural Gas LNG imports.” U.S. Energy Information Administration. 28 June
2013. Web. 11 July 2013. <http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9103us3m.htm>“;
Rotterdam Bunker Prices.” Ship & Bunker. 2013. 23 July 2013. Web. 23 July 2013.
 “International Shipping Facts and Figures –Information Resources on Trade, Safety, Security,
Environment.” International Marine Organization, Maritime Knowledge Centre, March 6
2012. Web. 11 July 2013.
 “North American Cruise Statistical Snapshot.” U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime
Administration, March 2012. Web. 11 July 2013.
 Bull, Yves. "Machinery Concepts and LNG for Meeting IMO Tier III Rules." Wartsila Technical
Journal (2011): n. pag. Web. 18 July 2013.
 Andersen, Mads, Niels Clausen, and Pierre Sames, Dr. "Costs and Benefits of LNG as Ship
Fuel for Container Vessels." Gl-group.com. Germanischer Lloyd, 2011. Web. 11 July 2013.
 Rob Almeida. “Do Eco-Ships Make Sense?” gCaptain, March 25 2013. Web. 18 July 2013.
 “More than 5 Pct of the World Fleet to Adopt LNG Propulsion by 2020”, World Maritime
News, October 17 2011. Web. 11 July 2013.
 “Sulphur oxides (SOx) – Regulation 14” International Maritime Organization. Web. 11 July
Stock Symbol : SHPR
 “Fuel Bio-Scrubber Systems.” PolyShield Technologies Product Presentation, 2013. Print.
 “MS Oasis of the Seas”, Wikipedia. Web. 11 July 2013.
 "Exhaust Gas Cleaning, Pure SOx." Alfa Laval, n.d. Web. 23 July 2013.
"CSNOX." EcoSpec Global Technology, n.d. Web. 23 July 2013.
"Wartsila Hybrid Scrubber System." Wartsila, n.d. Web. 23 July 2013.
 DuPont Belco Marine Scrubbing Systems. N.p.: n.p., 2009. DuPont Technologies. Web. 23
July 2013. <http://www.dupont.com/products-and-services/consulting-services-process-
 "GEA Westfalia Separator." GEA Mechanical Equipment USA, n.d. Web. 23 July 2013.
Statements contained in this document, including those pertaining to estimates and related plans, potential mergers and acquisitions,
estimates, growth, establishing new markets, expansion into new markets and related plans other than statements of historical fact, are
forward-looking statements subject to a number of uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from statements made.
Equities.com provides no assurance as to the subject company's plans or ability to effect any planned and/or proposed actions. Equities.com
has no first-hand knowledge of management and therefore cannot comment on its capabilities, intent, resources, nor experience and makes no
attempt to do so. Statistical information, dollar amounts, and market size data was provided by the subject company or its agent and related
Stock Symbol : SHPR
sources believed by Equities.com to be reliable, but Equities.com provides no assurance, and none is given, as to the accuracy and
completeness of this information.
DISCLAIMER: The information, opinions and analysis contained herein are based on sources believed to be reliable but no representation,
expressed or implied, is made as to its accuracy, completeness or correctness. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This report is
a paid advertisement and is for information purposes only and should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. Equities.com has
been compensated in the form of a debt write down from a third party or the company for preparation and posting of this report, audio
interview, virtual road show and other advertising services. This constitutes a conflict of interest as to Equities.com ability to remain objective in
its communication regarding the subject company. Analysts, principals, associates and employees of Equities.com do not currently own or trade
equities under coverage. For detailed disclosure as required by Rule 17b of the Securities Act of 1933/1934 contact Equities.com, 501 Colorado
ave, #170, Santa Monica, CA 90401. Equities.com is not an investment advisor and this report is not investment advice. This information is
neither a solicitation to buy nor an offer to sell securities but is a paid advertisement. Information contained herein contains forward-looking
statements and is subject to significant risks and uncertainties, which will affect the results. The opinions contained herein reflect our current
judgment and are subject to change without notice. We encourage our readers to invest carefully and read the investor information available at
the web sites of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at http://www.sec.gov and the National Association of Securities Dealers
(NASD) at http://www.nasd.com. The NASD has published information on how to invest carefully at its web site. Readers can review all public
filings by companies at the SEC's EDGAR page.