Tanker-and-the-environment for use for members Erik.Ranheim@INTERTANKO.com Manager Research and Projects Tanker shipping serving some of the world’s biggest companies BP’s approach to managing the environmental impact of its operations is underpinned by the goal of continuous performance improvement We strive to conduct business in a manner that is protective of the environment, and that is compatible with the environmental and economic needs of the communities in which we operate. Meeting the world’s growing energy needs and protecting the environment requires new technology, new partnerships and new ways of operating. How to produce energy in environmentally responsible ways Are tankers Green? Challenges VOC = Volatile ODS = Ozone Organic Depleting Substances Compounds (cooling medium) CO2/GHG emission Life cycle Building to Decommissioning/ recycling NOx, SOx, PM Annex VI Sewage Garbage Toxic Antifouling Accidental oil pollution Ballast water Environmental challenges in shipping Cleaner seas, cleaner air, a sound mother earth Cleaner air • Annex VI implemented GHG reduction • Currently the biggest challenge Cleaner seas • Oil pollution • Acidification of oceans • Anti-fouling Systems • Garbage, other pollutions into the sea Invasive spices – ballast water management Emission to air? The Challenges • The world demands greener shipping • Emission from shipping is dirty and harmful for the health and the environment • GHGs emission from shipping is not directly regulated under the Kyoto protocol • IMO assumed to regulate GHG emission • Shipping must react CO2 Emissions per Unit Load by Transport Mode Large Tanker 1 Large Containership 3 Railway 6 Coastal Carrier 11 Standard-size Commercial Truck 49 Small-size Commercial Truck 226 Airplane 398 0 100 200 300 400 Units Relative Source:Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Japan): The Survey on Transport Energy 2001/2002 MOL (Japan): Environmental and Social Report 2004 Shipping energy efficient 7 Engine break specific fuel consumption g per kWh 280 First ocean going diesel ship - MS Selandia 260 Oil crises 1973 240 220 200 180 Engine BSFC assumed constant for years 20002008 160 1910 1930 Source: Lloyd’s Register 1950 1970 1990 2010 Fuel efficiency in shipping has has improved Trends – Co2 emission, energy use, global trade Index 180 Population Energy use Seaborne trade 160 CO2 emission 140 120 100 Source: Fearnleys/INTERTANKO 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 80 There has been strong growth in shipping World primary oil demand IEA the Reference Scenario mbd 25 N America Europe 20 Pacific E.Euro/Eurasia 15 Other asia China 10 India Middle East 5 Africa L America 0 1980 Source: IEA 2000 2007 2015 2030 Marine bunkers World primary energy demand IEA the Reference Scenario 1000 million tonnes oil equivalents 5 Coal +2% Oil +1% Gas +1.8% Nuclear +0.9% Hydro +1.9% Biomass +1.4%** Renewables +1.6% 4 3 2 1 0 1980 Source: IEA 2000 2006 2015 2030 MARPOL Annex VI Reducing harmful emission to air from shipping • Emission regulated by MARPOL Annex VI: • • • • • • SOx NOx un-combusted hydrocarbon Heavy metals Soot Volatile Organic Compounds - VOC The Annex VI package All ships above 400GT Reduction SOx, NOx, + PM Compliance through fuel specification or Equivalent Measures accepted Assumes supply of low sulphur fuel* Bunker Delivery Note BDN important ** NOx Tier I, large engines built in 1990s NOx Tier II and Tier III, new engines * Ships not punished if required fuel not available **Guidelines to asses compliance if BDN data is challenged by PSC or lab test results The world is moving away from HFO Oil consumption by product - % share mbd % share 36% 85 31% 69 Mdl distil. - % share 26% Fuel oil - % share 53 Total - ts 37 16% 21 11% 5 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 21% Source: INTERTANKO/BP Review Why not scrubbers? • • • • • • Still under testing (3 ship limited scale) Large Expensive Difficult (impossible?) to install CO2 emission (buffering effect) leaves hazardous waste onboard which no-one wants • Tonnes of seawater need to be pumped through the ship and processed We are involved in transportation – not waste treatment New measures adopted at MEPC 58: SOx emissions Emission Control Area (ECA) 1.0% limit Global 3.5% limit ECA 0.1% limit: IMO review Global 0.5% limit Extension? 2010 2012 2015 2018 2020 No measures against ships that do not receive adequate supply 2025 New measures adopted at MEPC 58: NOx emissions Current regulation Tier I: existing ships built after 2000, base line Tier II: 15.5% - 21.8% reduction ships built on, after 1 Jan 2011 Tier I: ships built 1990s engine>5000 kWh, cylinders = >90 ltrs 2010 Tier II: 80% reduction ships built on, after 1 Jan 2016 Power output > 750 kW In Emission Control Areas (ECAs) ONLY 2011 2016 Many preconditions: engine rating, fuel consumption, durability, cost/benefit, availability of efficient upgrading system , upgrading at the ship’s first renewal survey Switching to distillates will Reduce global emissions • SO2 - 60-80%, • PM - 80-90% • NOx -15% • No heavy metals, less soot Cleaner, Simpler and more Efficient ships Improve conditions for crew and dockworkers Cause no safety problem in connection with fuel switching fuels entering ECAs Causes less engine breakdowns and potential pollution accidents Cause far less pollution when spilled Provides opportunity for the development of more efficient engines (w. less emission) Fit all ships and current engines Be easy for authorities to control Challenge to produce sufficient clean fuel GHG emission Shipping’s tools to reduce GHGs? • Indices • • • Market instruments • • • • Design Operational Emission trading Scheme (ETS), to stimulate entrepreneurship? Levy, equal to tax? Offset charges (ref IOPC)? Ship Efficiency Management Plan No general agreement on how to regulate GHG emission from shipping Everybody must reduce emission CO2 emission does not mean much unless related to the size of the company and the nature of its operation Shipping represents only some 3% of GHG emission, but Emission is made up a multitude of small contributors Shipping carries ~ 80% of goods transported and volumes shows an increasing trend and The challenge is, therefore, to reduce emission by improving efficiency without unduly affecting trade The Stern Report Conclusions: Human-caused alterations to the global climate may result in reductions of global GDP of anywhere from 5 to 20% per year Current global economic crisis shows how a relatively small reduction of output, such as 1 2% of GDP, may already have considerable implications for trade Climate change may initially have small positive effect, but longer term the effects will be very damaging. The benefits of strong, early action outweigh the costs. Lord Stern of Brentford Policy of action to be based on 3 elements: Technology Behavioural change Carbon pricing Later the situation is believed to be much more serious that outlined in The Stern Report Shipping’s tools to reduce GHGs? • • Technology • Design index • Ship Efficiency Management Plan Behavioural change • • • • Operational index Cooperation with charterers Improving logistics Pricing of carbon • • • Emission trading Scheme (ETS), to stimulate entrepreneurship? Levy Compensation fund No general agreement on MBIs CO2 reduction – Trade increasing 40 - 80 % increase if no efficiency measures taken Bridgeable gap?? 20 - 30 % absolute reduction onshore 2006 Reference 2010 2025 Ship sizes and emission 400 GT and above GT ships >400 >500 >2,000 >10,000 60,000 45,000 30,000 16,000 Source: DnV CO2 emission from ships ~ 90% ~ 87% ~ 80% ~ 67% Fair to the 3rd world Energy (oil equivalents) consumption and CO2 emission per capita (not including hydro or nuclear) Oil equivalents/capita CO2 emission /capita 7 20.0 18.0 6 16.0 Energy consumption, oil equivalents/capita Emission per capita 5 14.0 12.0 4 10.0 3 8.0 6.0 2 4.0 1 2.0 Source: IEA US Russia S Korea OECD Japan Mdl East UK FSU Norway Italy France World China Africa 0.0 India 0 .. the only serious defensible principle is equal emission rights per capita, adjusted for past emissions. The options to reduce GHG emission Energy Efficiency Design Index - EEDI Require a minimum energy efficiency of new ships Stimulates technical development Separates technical and design based measures from operational and commercial measures Compares the energy efficiency of an individual ship to similar ships which could have taken its cargo Wide support in IMO, except some developing countries* Supported by INTERTANKO Sea trial Esther Spirit You cannot manage what you cannot measure To be based on, installed power, specific fuel consumption, correction factors to account for specific design elements, speed, dwt, the contribution from auxiliary machinery EEDI = Fuel consumption / cargo x distance * Wants “common but differentiated responsibilities” agreed under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The CO2 operational index An instrument for evaluating quantitatively the effect of operational fuel efficiency measures, such as speed reduction or optimum navigation Charterers great influence Necessary to evaluate SEMP Not immediately mandatory No direct link to design index Cap-and-trade The quotas system has already contributed with investments in the non-Annex I countries which will reduce of CO2 emission by 1,800 m tonnes (1.2% annually) for the period 2008-12 Word emission 2004 27,000 m ts, today some 30,000 m ts Carbon Point CO2 has become a commodity and CO2 trading a multi billion (€50 bn) industry Cap-and-trade not enough? •For the period until 2012 so many allowances are given that CO2 price will be zero, for the period 201320, tighter, average prize some €35/tn •According McKinsey $75 per tn is necessary to make a sufficiently number of emission reduction initiative profitable, $45/tn expected and this will only cause half the needed reduction •Legal requirements necessary to limit emission from certain sectors, in addition to •Public support to emission reducing measures Jørgen Randers Professor Professor at the Norwegian School of Business Asdministation Aviation ETS scheme All* flights to/from EU included as of 2012 Reduction 2012 3%, later 5% cut p.a.** Operators must submit plans by 30.03.11 Use of revenues generated by auctioning allowances decided by EU by members Complemented by technical/ operational CO2 reducing measures Further unilateral and other agreements on global measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. On 7 October the Environment Committee of the European Parliament called for shipping to be included in the revision of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS). * smallest planes excluded ** Reduction target based of average emissions 2004-06 Europe basis for shore based ETS - decided aviation ETS - shipping next? ETS pros and cons - + 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Contributes to reduced CO2 emission by definition, Links shipping into onshore/aviation ETS Market based pricing of carbon Direct purchase of CO2 units from Administrator reduces opportunity for evasion. With enforcement by port states, implementation can initially be limited to Annex 1 countries (80% of world trade). Equal treatment of international trading vessels > 400 GRT regardless of ownership, flag state, or port of origin. Enables ship operators to invest-or-buy Dynamic- may stimulate entrepreneurship 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Marine ETS still at conceptual stage, allowance allocation and/or auctioning needs to be defined Will require definition of a ‘CAP’ Fluctuating carbon market price introduces investment uncertainty for GHG reduction technology. Requires set-up of trading administration and agreement on an effective monitoring, verification and enforcement system. Effective enforcement will require the set up of a data exchange process involving all participating states. Requires strict investment criteria and monitoring of fund expenditure. ‘Critical mass’ of Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries must be signatory to be effective Shipping very fragmented compared to current onshore and aviation ETS Little understood by shipping people, some support from shipping (Belgian, Italian, Norwegian, Swedish and UK Shipowners’ Associations) Source: OCIMF with some adaption Reducing global warming Global warming: • A global problem, to be addressed globally. • A long-run problem, the long-run levels of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases more important than the level of emissions in any particular year, as with The costs of reducing the level of emissions will be much lower if it is done efficiently, i.e. comprehensiveness, covering all sources of emissions, countries and ways of reducing atmospheric carbon concentrations. Then two conditions should be met: 1. we need a global agreement, and a global agreement will require equitable burden sharing. 2. The shadow price of carbon should be approximately the same in all uses, in all countries, and at all dates 3. A system of taxes on carbon (that would operate like the VAT), would be a better approach than the "Cap and Trade" system of carbon trading Joseph Stiglitz Nobel prize economics Professor at Columbia University (United States) Formerly Chief Economist at the World Bank Reducing global warming On the "Cap and Trade" system, was easy to implement for major sources of emissions, but harder to implement for the multitude of small sources. It is also giving rise to distortions and transactions costs. A key issue is how to allocate emission rights, which are a valuable asset, worth perhaps $2 trillion annually (or 5% of global GDP). This issue has become a major stumbling block in reaching a global agreement, and the attempt to avoid taking on full implications of this issue is one of the reasons for distortionary policies (or for carbon in different uses being priced differently). Joseph Stiglitz Nobel prize economics Professor at Columbia University (United States) Formerly Chief Economist at the World Bank GHG Compensation Fund pros and cons + 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Contributes to reduce emission as fund is to be used to buy emission reduction credits, and to stimulate the development of and the use of emission reduction technology Equal treatment of international trading vessels > 400 GRT regardless of ownership or flag state Conceptually simple to implement Provides ship owner some certainty over costs Use of bunker delivery note as evidence of payment facilitates enforcement. Accuracy of the bunker oil consumption baseline will improve as global compliance is achieved. Data can be used for Annex VI supply/demand studies. Introduces an ‘invest-or-pay’ concept 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. May not reflect the price of carbon. Requires monitoring and adjustment of levy to achieve desired outcome. ‘Critical mass’ of major bunker supply countries must be signatory for effective implementation. Issues of principle, governance and administration need to be resolved. For reductions in GHG emissions to be achieved, strict investment criteria and monitoring of fund expenditure are required. Setting the contribution level to the fund is subject to political pressures. The complexity of the bunker supply chain makes collection of funds by the Administrator unlikely to be 100% effective. Once introduced, a levy is unlikely ever to be removed even if the CO2 reduction target is achieved – regarded as tax No current precedence Supported by BIMCO, INTERCARGO, JSA, MAS, HKSOA, UGS and INERTANKO under certain preconditions ...a tax is “a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc”, Source: OCIMF with some adaption Gasoline price at the pump Dollar per litre 1.50 Cost elements making up the gasoline price: 1.20 Long haul freight rates Marketing* 0.90 Oil price Tax 0.60 Levy 0.30 0.00 USA Japan Germany UK * Refining/ marketing and profit. Based on Dec 08/Jan 09 figures from IEA and the Baltic Exchange GHG Fund proposed by Denmark Mitigation/Adaptation project R&D for highly efficient ships IMO-TC Contributions ( per unit fuel) International GHG Fund Contributing to the adaptation of developing countries and to investment to reduce CO2 emission (Compatibility of CBDR principle and uniform application of rules ) MBIs - INTERTANKO PRINCIPLES 1. Effective in contributing to the reduction of total GHG - funds collected be used to buy credits in accordance with JI & CDM. - stimulate leading energy efficiency technologies - stimulate innovation and R&D - encourage terms and conditions to improve logistics 2. Environmentally sustainable without negative impact on global trade and growth and should: - be cost effective - be able to limit distortion of competition - give credit for actions already taken which have already resulted in GHG reductions 3. Comprehensive, efficient, transparent and credible enforcement & monitoring - ship specific and based on actual fuel burned - governed by IMO - binding and equally applicable to all ships - practical, transparent, fraud-free and easy to administer - able to demonstrate compliance through proper monitoring - certainty & predictability of the scheme Other initiatives to reduce GHG emission Ship Efficiency Management Plan SEMP • SEMP for each ship in operation • SEMP to contain: Best practices to save energy Voyage optimization Propulsion Resistance Management Programme Other technical/operational measures Voluntary Operational Index (for each voyage & over a period of time/voyages) • When IMO SEMP guidelines completed, INTERTANKO will based on this work out SEMP for tankers by pooling information Industry initiatives Ship efficiency management plan • OCIMF “Energy Efficiency and Fuel Management” – an appendix to TMSA 2* • OCIMF opens for consideration of c/p clauses to optimise the voyage and other operations to save energy during transportation *TMSA Tanker Management Self Assessment Best Practices Participation from a wide range of tankers INTERTANKO Membership 3,100 tankers Applicability/ effectiveness Depend on fleet characteristics Dynamic continuous improvement Advice, input: *Class *Charterers *Yards *Other owners *Others Various, individual measures Monitoring, assessment Adjustment/corrective action INTERTANKO a forum for sharing information and experience Accidental oil pollution into the sea Tanker Incidents and accidental pollution ’000 ts pollution Number incidents 1050 600 Misc Security 840 Fire/Expl Hull & Machinery 480 Grounded Coll/Contact 630 420 Oil pollution 2009 is a projection based on 68 days 210 360 240 120 0 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0 Source: INTERTANKO, based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + others Tanker Incidents and accidental pollution Number incidents 1050 840 630 360 420 300 240 180 210 Coll/Contac t Fire/Expl Hull & Mac hinery Security Grounded Misc 120 60 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 0 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0 Source: INTERTANKO, based on data from LMIU, + others Incidents attended by ITOPF over the past 5 years Number 18 Tankers: 40 Non tanker: 66 15 12 9 6 7 14 14 10 9 12 8 17 13 3 2 0 2004 Source: ITOPF 2005 2006 2007 2008 Incidents attended by ITOPF over the past 5 years Number 18 Tankers: 40 Non tanker: 66 15 12 9 6 7 14 14 10 9 12 8 17 13 3 2 0 2004 Source: ITOPF 2005 2006 2007 2008 Accidental oil spills from tankers 1978-2008 ’000 ts pollution 70 Year Tanker 1991 ABT Summer 1991 Haven 1991 Kirki 1992 Agean Sea 1992 Katina P 1993 Braer 1997 Nakhodka 1996 Sea Empress 1999 Erika 2002 Prestige 2003 Tasman Spirit 2004 Al Samidoon 2005 DBL 152 2006 Bright Artemise 2007 Hebei Spirit 2008 Tintomara 60 50 40 30 20 10 Source: ITOPF + others 08 06 04 02 00 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 0 Ts spill 260,000 144,000 17,700 74,000 72,000 85,000 14,000 72,000 20,000 63,000 30,000 9,000 9,465 4,500 10,500 1,400 Largest spills in each year: 2004 - 2008 Accidental oil pollution into the sea and tanker trade 1000 ts spilt bn tonne-miles 3.5 105 2.8 84 1000 ts spilt 2.1 63 '0000 bn tonne-miles 42 1.4 0.7 - 63% -6% -85% 21 0 0.0 1970s 1980s Source: INTERTANKO/ITOPF/Fearnleys 1990s PR00s Tanker accidental pollution 1974 – 2008 by cause Collisions 6% Groundings 6% Hull Failures 8% Fire & Explosions Other/Unknown 1% 54% 25% Based on data from ITOPF Operational Tanker hull & machinery incidents Number incidents 500 Engine 400 Hull & Machinery 300 Split engine and other Hull & Machinery 200 100 Based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + others 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 0 Engine incidents Number incidents 60 Engine 50 Other Hull & Machinery 40 2009 is a projection based on 135 days 30 20 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + others 2006 2007 2008 2009 Tanker engine incidents Number incidents Year <10 years 10-24 years >25 years Total Average age 2002 4 15 3 22 17.5 2003 3 8 3 14 18.4 2004 2 7 3 12 18.8 2005 9 20 5 34 17.6 2006 12 17 3 32 14.3 2007 20 25 3 48 13.2 2008 25 24 10 59 15.6 2009* 7 10 1 18 12.8 82 126 30 238 15.5 Total *135 days Based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + others Will history repeat itself? Or have necessary measure been implemented to ensure that catastrophes do not repeat themselves? Lack of good incident data prevent us from doing accurate analysis. Let’s look at some indications Will history repeat itself? Hull failure (?) Tanker Year Spill ts Location Kirki World Horizon 1991 1991 17,280 Pacific, West Australia Lost bow 850 Off South Africa Lost bow Katina P 1992 74,000 Tochal 1994 200 Thanassis A Nakhodka Erika Prestige 1994 1997 1999 2002 20,000 17,500 20,000 63,000 off Mozambique NW of Cape Town Lost bow 700 km off Hong Kong Japan Off Britanny Spain New regulations/precautions: • Enhanced Special Periodical Survey Programme - adopted by the 18th session of the IMO Assembly in November 1993 • DH requirements • Common Structural Rules (initiated by INTERTANKO) • Stricter vetting, age discrimination after ERIKA Recorded hull failures/incidents: 2002 2003 2004 2005 7 (Prestige) + 2 minor spills 6 1 minor spill 4 1 minor spill 3 1 minor spill 2006 2007 2008 1Q09 3 1 2,000 ts spill 9 1 minor spill 3 zero spills 1 zero spills Segregated Ballast Tank Coated Areas 260,000 ton VLCC HULL TYPE Square Meters pre-Marpol 25,000 Marpol 80,000 Double Hull 225,000 Will history repeat itself? Collision/Grounding/Contact Tanker BT Nautilus Athos I Al Samidoon Grigoroussa I Bright Artemis Hebei Spirit SKS Satilla DH Year 1990 2004 2004 2006 2006 2007 2009 Spill ts 1,000 850 9,000 3,000 4,500 11,000 zero Location New York (contact reef bottom) - HFO Delaware River (contact object btm) Suez Canal (HFO) Suez Canal (HFO) East Indian Ocean (contact/rescue) Off Korea (rammed by crane) Outside Galveston (ctct object btm) New regulations • INTERTANKO US Port and Terminal Safety Study 1996/2002 • INTERTANKO Terminal Vetting Database • DH requirements Traffic separation schemes and other ship routeing systems have now been established in most of the major congested, shipping areas of the world, and the number of collisions and groundings has often been dramatically reduced. Will history repeat itself? Place of refuge Tanker Erika Prestige Castor* Year 1999 2002 2000 Spill ts 20,000 63,000 zero Location Off Britanny Spain Western Mediterranean Sea. New initiatives • IMO Resolution A.949(23) after INTERTANKO initiative • EU directive • Under discussion in the US *The ABS said the conclusions have implications for how ships are inspected and wider implications for how the new generation of doublehulled tankers should be built and maintained. At the least, the ABS said, rules should be amended regarding how and when ships are inspected and what surveyors should look for. Will history repeat itself? Human failure On March 24, 1989, the tanker Exxon Valdez, en route from Valdez, Alaska to Los Angeles, California, ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska spilling 35,000 tonnes of Prudhoe Bay crude oil. Failure of navigation, deviation from separation zones (got permission to use inbound lane), inexperienced and tired officer on the Bridge, Captain who was in his cabin had been drinking alcohol. People do not work in a vacuum and the company culture, training, systems, procedures and technology have to take into account that mistakes will be made. INTERTANKO Human Element Committee • Guidance booklet on Seafarers’ Hours of work and Rest - 2008 • Best Practice - Cadet Berths • Tanker Officers Training Standards (TOTS). Will history repeat itself? Fire and explosions Tanker Year Spill ts Location Khark 5* 1989 80,000 185 km off Morocco ABT summer ** 1991 260,000 coast of Angola . Most important tanker safety measure: Inert Gas Stems IGS • Inerting double hull spaces in emergency situations * Explosion following ballast tank leak **Explosion due to leak from cargo tanks Kashmir due Jebel Ali after collision Will history repeat itself? Pilotage Tanker Aegean Sea* Sea Empress** . Year 1992 1996 Spill ts Location 74,000 La Coruna harbor, Spain 72,000 entrance to Milford Haven, Wales New initiatives • INTERTANKO/BIMCO/ICS International Best Practices for Maritime Pilotage * Grounded following loss of steering in bad weather **Pilot misjudged tide (similar to Torrey Canyon 18 March 1967) Other challenges Anti-fouling • Chemical Pollution – Tin-based antifouling caused: • • • • Shell fish sex-changes, male to female Thinning of oyster shells, collapse of oyster fisheries Hormone changes in higher sea mammals Anti-fouling Systems (AFS) Convention – – – • Entered into force 17 September 2008 Tin-based systems banned Mechanism to ban other biocides in the future INTERTANKO – – Move towards biocide-free systems Comparison of silicon systems Biofouling • Biological Pollution – – – • Invasive species issue Organisms on ‘niche’ areas of the hull Air emissions issue? Biofouling Management – • IMO Voluntary Guidelines under development INTERTANKO – Good practice • • – – Reduce invasive species Improve vessel performance – reduce air emissions Support management guidelines Ports must allow hull management operations Ballast Water Management • Biological Pollution – • Invasive species IMO Ballast Water Convention – – – • Question over entry into force Will the technology work? Regional rules INTERTANKO – – – – Share information on experience with new technology Management plans as standard practice for over 5 years Understand and Implement the IMO guidelines Ensure compliance by sharing information on regional and national regulations Environmental challenges Even in a bad market High standards – a precondition for good risk management Ms Littlefield (IUMI president) said there were strong signs that the safety culture at sea was taking root. But she warned Ship operators are being buffeted from all sides in the growing economic crisis. But to cut corners on maintenance or training can only have one result in the long term: more casualties, higher claims on insurers, and higher premium and deductible levels for shipowners. IUMI, in its first snapshot of 2008 Cypriot oil tanker "Haven" burning in the Gulf of Genoa The sea get sick, but it never dies Healing is a matter of time, But also of opportunity Greek proverbs Thank you