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