Upload
duc
View
52
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
[email protected] Manager Research and Projects Main issues facing the tanker industry China Logistics 19 October 2005. S pokesman/representative S ervice/advice M eeting place. INTERTANKO. The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
[email protected] Research and Projects
Main issues facing the tanker industryChina Logistics 19 October 2005
Spokesman/representative
Service/advice
Meeting place
INTERTANKOThe International Association of Independent Tanker Owners
For Safe Transport, Cleaner Seas and Free Competition
Representation
IMO, International Chamber of Shipping
UNCTAD, Oil Companies International Marine Forum
IACS, International Assoc. of Classification Societies
OECD/IEA of P&I Clubs Brussels.
Washington ……..
255 Members2,380 tankers192 million dwt40 countries70% of independent fleet280 Associate Members
INTERTANKO Membership
Main issues facing the global tanker industry
Safety performance
Current maritime regulatory environment
Players in the tanker industry
Challenges ahead
Environmental concerns
Zero tolerance
Tanker incidents down
Reported tanker incidents 1978 - 2005
0
200
400
600
800
1000
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 04P05
War
Hull & Machinery
Fire/Expl
Grounded
Coll/Contact
Misc
Reported tanker incidents 9 ms 2005 - total 104
Hull&Machinery (18 engine, 2 hull)dwt range Total
Below 10,000 45
10-29,999 20
30-99,999 26
100,000+ 13
Total 104
Age Total
Built 1970s 17
Built 1980s 35
Built 1990s 31
Built 2000s 21
Total 104
3%
33%
13%
38%13%
Collision Groundings
Misc.
F&E
Tanker pollution down
Accidental pollution from tankers oil spilt per tonne mile 1990 - 2005
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 00 03
Accidental oil spills from tankers
Major structural accidents - 000 tonnes
Source: INTERTANKO/ITOPF
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
Katina P
Erika
2003Balu sunk
sulphuric acid
Kirki
Haven
Prestige
March 2001Castor
deck crack no pollutionFebruary
2001Kristial sunk
Chemical spill
Thanassiss A
ESP
ABT Summer
Nakhodka
20032 Fire&Exp
Barge Bouchard8,400
not includedVictoriya1,000 tsincluded
Tanker accidental oil spillsdown 80%
Source: ITOPF
ts spilt
99.9999% of the oilarrived safely
‘000 bn tonne-miles
0
300
600
900
1,200
1989-96 1997-040
18,000
36,000
54,000
72,000
90,000
m ts spilt
bn tonne-miles
Oil pollution into the seaMaritime sources
Source: GESAMP
4%
67%
4%
2%
3%
2% 0%
18%Shipping general
Accidents tankers+barges
Tank washing/VOC
Exploration and Production
Coastal Refineries
War related accidents
Leisure Craft
Natural seeps/others
Tanker/barges: 5%Shippping:9% of which tanker/barge accidents 2.8%
Total losses down
Tanker total losses by size
Source: Clarkson Shipyard Monitor/INTERTANKO
No
1988 – 1996: 29 CTLs 1996 – 2005: 14 CTLs
60% below 60,000dwt
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
8 ms0
5
Products
Panamaxes
Aframaxes
Suezmaxes
VLCC
Tanker and bulker total losses
Source: Clarkson Shipyard Monitor/INTERTANKO
%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1989
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Tankers: 43
Bulkers. 135
Explosions
Large tankers explosion before IGS requirements 1983/1985
Tanker Size dwt Year• Seatiger, 123,692 1979, 2 fatalities• Atlantic Empress 292,666 1979, 29 “• Energy Determination 321,186 1979 , 1 “• Albahaa B 239,410 1980, 6 “• Mycene 238,889 1980, 6 “
Recent tankers explosion
Tanker Size GT Year• Bow Mariner 22,587 2004, 21 fatalities• Vicuna 23,197 2004, 2 “• NCC Mekka 6,499 2004 , 2 “ • Panam Serana 6,499 2004 , 2 “• Sun Venus 4,356 2004, 2 “• Sunnny Jewel 4,386 2004, 3 “• Isola Azura 9,383 2005, 2 “
Tanker Explosion 2001-2005
Source: Informa/INTERTANKO
Type/cause F&E
dwt range
TotalBelow 10,000 10-29999 30-99,999
Above 100,000
During repairs 3 3 4 10
Tank related 2 1 2 1 6
Engine room fire 4 1 5
Cleaning 3 3
Load/Discharge 3 3
Various/Unknown 13 0 7 3 15
Total 20 2 10 8 40
% 50% 5% 25% 20% 100%
25/20%
15/7%
13/24%
8/3%
8/3%
Average age down
Tanker incidents and age development
Source:LMIS/Informa/INTERTANKO
%
0
220
440
660
880
1100
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 04P05
0.0
3.2
6.4
9.6
12.8
16.0
Incidents
Age
Tanker pollution and age development
Source:LMIS/Informa/INTERTANKO
000 ts Years
0
130
260
390
520
650
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 04P05
0.0
3.2
6.4
9.6
12.8
16.0
Pollution
Age
Tanker fleet double-hull development
Source: Fearnleys/INTERTANKO
%
622
51 59 67 70 73 76 8494
78
49 41 33 30 27 24 16
0
20
40
60
80
100
1991 1997 End02
End03
End04
End05
End06
End07
End10*
DH SH/DB/DS
% dwt share*:
* Assumes phase out according to regulations (rounded upwards, 25 years after 2010.
In shipping high standards reflect the quality of the owner not the regulatory regime
Erik MurdochDirector of Risk Management, The Standard P&I Club
Regulatory Environment
Leading members of our community, politicians, regulators and charterers alike, appear to be digesting the fact that mere legislative or penalising measures are already reaching their limitations as a driver for further improvement. Many have even started to express their concerns that all such externally imposed controlling devises are becoming counterproductive or even harmful.
Emmanuel Vordonis, Executive Director Thenamaris Ships Management,Member of INTERTANKO’s Executive Committee
Poseidon challenge
Regulation vs self regulation
Regulating safety
Source: INTERTANKO
Formal regulations and controls
Self regulation
Unsafe - Chaos
AlienationLack of motivation and flexibilityProcedures purely to meet reg. req.
Compliance cultureBureaucracyCheck list mentality stops initiative
ConfusionLack of global standards
Right balance provide the best safety culture
Chain of ResponsibilityChain of Responsibility
Governments Law, Courts, Insurers
SHIPOWNER
SHIPYARDS
INSURERS
TRAFFICMANAGEMENT
CARGO OWNER
CHARTERER
PORTS & TERMINALS
CLASSSOCIETIES
FLAG STATES
For the system to work, liability has to be shared
Challenges
Challenges to the industrySupremacy of IMO & International Maritime Law versus regional and local legislation Liability - moves to open up CLC/Fund ConventionAnnex VI implementationCriminalising accidental pollution - Penal sanctions adopted by EUCommon Structural Rules & Goal Based StandardsShip RecyclingBallast water managementSecurity - (ISPS costs to be reflected in Worldscale)Phase out
MARPOL Annex VI Air emissions - how to ensure compliance
All ships of 400GT and above• Entered into force May 19th, 2005• Existing ships no later than 1st scheduled drydocking or no later that May 2008• New ships 19 May 2005
Areas to be considered:• SOx/fuel quality• NOx – spare parts and repairs• VOC – vapour return lines & new technologies• Incinerators (type approved )
Bunkering procedures:• Bunker Delivery Note• Sample• Ship’s Note to Flag States – reports on non-compliance• Fuel switch for use of LSF in SECAs
Ratification
Ratified by 22 Governments that have a combined tonnage over 50% of World tonnage:• Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Japan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Norway, Panama, St. Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.
Not ratified by for example:• China, S Korea, France, Netherlands, Middle East Countries, US
Bunkering in a “non party” port followed by a call in a “party” port Potential source of trouble out of ship’s control
CriminalisationTraditionally accidents have been
regarded as quite distinct from deliberate acts
Attitudes have changed (scapegoat mentality) ref. Captain Mangouras, ERIKA, The Karachi Eight TASMAN SPIRIT
EU Directive on Ship-Source Pollution (despite wide industry coalition) Canadian Bill C-15 US approach (whistle blowing, enormous fines and rewards
IACS Common Rules for Tankers as from April 2006
INTERTANKO initiative started more than five years ago Objectives were to:
• eliminate class competition on scantlings• embrace the intentions of goal-based standards• meet the requirements of industry and the shipyards
will apply for double hull tankers of 150 m and above. Ships should be designed with a fatigue life of 25 years
based on N Atlantic winter conditions, with corrosion additions also based on 25 years, at least equivalent to or even in excess of all current Class regulations.
Industry Code of Practice (1999)
IMO Guidelines (2003)
ILO & Basel Guidelines
Consideration of Mandatory Elements Market Forces
• Shipping Industry• Green Recycling
International Ship Recycling Convention
Shipping Industry Feedback
• Workable• Practical• Objectives Met
Ship Recycling
Ballast Water Management: Meeting the Treatment Standard – Treatment Technology
Meeting the Treatment Standard• Ballast Water Exchange and/or Treatment Technology
Ships Constructed before 2009 with BW capacity 1500-5000, treatment technology in use after 2014
Phase in for Treatment System Installation (B-3)
Ships Constructed before 2009 with BW capacity less than 1500 and greater than 5000, treatment technology in use after 2016
Ships Constructed on or after 2009 with BW capacity less than 5000, treatment technology in use from 2009
Ships Constructed after 2009 but before 2012 with BW capacity greater than 5000, treatment technology in use after 2016
Ships Constructed at 2012 or after with BW capacity greater than 5000, treatment technology in use after 2012
Ballast Water Management: Meeting the Treatment Standard – Treatment Technology
Case StudiesA) 40,000dwt Product Tanker to be delivered July 2007
Ballast water capacity greater than 5000m3 so will be able to conduct ballast water exchange until 2016, when it will then have to have been retrofitted with a ballast water treatment system.
B) 8,000dwt Chemical Tanker to be delivered July 2007Ballast capacity of less than 5000m3 but greater than 1500m3, will have to be retrofitted with a ballast water treatment system by 2014.
C) Existing VLCC – delivered 2003Ballast water exchange until 2016, retrofitted after 2016. BUT, if prototype system installed and test programme approved by IMO, 5 year exemption given, upgrade system in 2021.
Phase out history In the aftermath of Exxon Valdez, 0n 18 August 1990, the US President signed
into law the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). This was the first regulation which has mandated double hull design for tankers with a building contract after 30 June 1990 and with a delivery after 31 Dec. 1992
First IMO phase out initiated by the US OPA 90 - ratified by IMO March1992 - enforced as from July 1993
Accelerated IMO phase out initiated by Europe as a result of the ERIKA accident outside France - ratified by IMO April 2000 - enforced as from September 2001
Further acceleration of IMO phase out initiated by Europe as a result of the PRESTIGE accident outside Spain - ratified by IMO December 2003, enforced as from April 2005 - enforced by Europe as from October 2003
The European Union’s Regulation (1726/2003) on single hull tankers took effect on 21st October 2003
Both ERIKA and PRESTIGE carried Heavy Fuel Oils that can pollute up to ten times more than crude oil. IMO therefore adopted a new regulation – Regulation 13H of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 – banning the carriage of heavy grade oil as cargo in single hull oil tankers as from 5 April 2005.
Phase out Regulations13G
Category 1 - non PL/SBT (pre-MARPOL) tankers out by 2005Category 2/3 out by 2010 or 2015 subject to administrationsDouble bottom or side tankers until 25 years
13HHeavy grades of oil in double hull tankersProvisions for some heavy crude oils, double bottom/side tankers and domestic trade
OPA90 schedule/size limit differentConversion to PL/SBT - DHAnnex II revision not phase out, but will shut SH tankers out of vegoil+ trades as from 2007
Phase out
Special provisions 13 G (5) - double bottom/sides - CAS requirement13 G (7) - SH trading beyond 2010/25 years13 G (8) (b) – entry into ports or offshore terminals (provisions (5), (7)13 H (5) - double bottom/sides - trading beyond 2010/25 years13 H (6) (a) - crude oil having a density at 15ºC higher than 900 kg/m3 but lower than 945 kg/m313H (6) (b) - 600 tons dwt and above but less than 5,000 tons dwt - SH until 25 years13 H (7) - exclusively within an area under its jurisdiction,13 H (8) (b) – entry into ports or offshore terminals (provisions (5), (6)
Flag / Port States13G (5)
13G (7)
13G (8)(b) 13H (5)
13H (6)(a)
13H (6)(b)
13H (7)
13H (8)(b)
Australia Y1 N Y N N N N Y
Bahamas Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y N/A
Barbados Y Y N Y Y Y 7 N
EU Members Y1 N Y N N N N Y
Greece N N N Y Y Y Y N
Hong Kong Y1 Y2 N N N N N Y
India Y Y N Y Y Y Y N
Japan Y1 Y N Y1 N Y3 - N4
Liberia Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y N/A
Marshall Isl. Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y N/A
Mexico Y N Y N N N N Y
Panama Canal - -case by
case - - - -case by
case
Panama Flag Y Y N Y Y Y N N
China Y N Y Y2 N N N Y
Republic of Korea - - - N5 N5 N5 N5 Y
Romania Y N Y N N N N Y
Singapore Y Y N Y Y Y Y N
United States N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: WWW.INTERTANKO.com
Implementation policies
Conclusion Strong industry performance, but no complacency Zero tolerance to oil pollution Formal Regulations must provide room for flexibility
and new initiatives Most pending regulations are common industry
regulations Industry challenge to ensure global standards and
regulations Cooperation with all the members in the maritime
responsibility chain will provide the best results
INTERTANKO’s aim
Strong responsible, sustainable and respected industry able to influence its own destiny