1 / 46

Erik.Ranheimintertanko.comManager Research and ProjectsMain issues facing the tanker industryChina Logistics 19 October

The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners. For Safe Transport, Cleaner ... Vicuna 23,197 2004, 2

Kelvin_Ajay
Télécharger la présentation

Erik.Ranheimintertanko.comManager Research and ProjectsMain issues facing the tanker industryChina Logistics 19 October

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Erik.Ranheim@intertanko.com Manager Research and Projects Main issues facing the tanker industry China Logistics 19 October 2005

  2. Spokesman/representative Service/advice Meeting place INTERTANKO The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners For Safe Transport, Cleaner Seas and Free Competition

  3. 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 • ……..

  4. 255 Members 2,380 tankers 192 million dwt 40 countries 70% of independent fleet 280 Associate Members INTERTANKO Membership

  5. Safety performance Current maritime regulatory environment Players in the tanker industry Challenges ahead • Main issues facing the global tanker industry

  6. Environmental concerns • Zero tolerance

  7. Tanker incidents down

  8. Reported tanker incidents 1978 - 2005

  9. Reported tanker incidents 9 ms 2005 - total 104 Hull&Machinery (18 engine, 2 hull)

  10. Tanker pollution down

  11. Accidental pollution from tankers oil spilt per tonne mile 1990 - 2005

  12. Accidental oil spills from tankersMajor structural accidents - 000 tonnes Source: INTERTANKO/ITOPF

  13. Tanker accidental oil spills • down 80% ts spilt ‘000 bn tonne-miles 99.9999% of the oil arrived safely Source: ITOPF

  14. Oil pollution into the sea Maritime sources Source: GESAMP

  15. Total losses down

  16. Tanker total losses by size No 60% below 60,000dwt 1988 – 1996: 29 CTLs 1996 – 2005: 14 CTLs Source: Clarkson Shipyard Monitor/INTERTANKO

  17. Tanker and bulker total losses % Source: Clarkson Shipyard Monitor/INTERTANKO

  18. Explosions

  19. 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 “ • Large tankers explosion before IGS requirements 1983/1985

  20. 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 “ • Recent tankers explosion

  21. Tanker Explosion 2001-2005 25/20% 15/7% 13/24% 8/3% 8/3% Source: Informa/INTERTANKO

  22. Average age down

  23. Tanker incidents and age development % Source:LMIS/Informa/INTERTANKO

  24. Tanker pollution and age development Years 000 ts Source:LMIS/Informa/INTERTANKO

  25. Tanker fleet double-hull development % Source: Fearnleys/INTERTANKO

  26. In shipping high standards reflect the quality of the owner not the regulatory regime Erik Murdoch Director of Risk Management, The Standard P&I Club

  27. Regulatory Environment

  28. 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

  29. Regulation vs self regulation

  30. Regulating safety Self regulation Compliance culture Bureaucracy Check list mentality stops initiative Confusion Lack of global standards Right balance provide the best safety culture Alienation Lack of motivation and flexibility Procedures purely to meet reg. req. Unsafe - Chaos Formal regulations and controls Source: INTERTANKO

  31. Governments Law, Courts, Insurers Chain of Responsibility SHIPOWNER CLASS SOCIETIES CHARTERER SHIPYARDS CARGO OWNER INSURERS PORTS & TERMINALS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FLAG STATES Forthe system to work, liability has to be shared

  32. Challenges

  33. Supremacy of IMO & International Maritime Law versus regional and local legislation Liability - moves to open up CLC/Fund Convention Annex VI implementation Criminalising accidental pollution - Penal sanctions adopted by EU Common Structural Rules & Goal Based Standards Ship Recycling Ballast water management Security - (ISPS costs to be reflected in Worldscale) Phase out • Challenges to the industry

  34. Allships 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 MARPOL Annex VI Air emissions - how to ensure compliance

  35. 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, SKorea, 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 Ratification

  36. Criminalisation • Traditionallyaccidents have been regarded as quite distinct from deliberate acts • Attitudeshave changed(scapegoat mentality) ref. Captain Mangouras, ERIKA, The Karachi Eight TASMAN SPIRIT • EUDirective on Ship-Source Pollution (despite wide industry coalition) Canadian Bill C-15 US approach (whistle blowing, enormous fines and rewards

  37. IACS Common Rules for Tankers as from April 2006 • INTERTANKOinitiative 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.

  38. Ship Recycling Industry Code of Practice (1999) ILO & Basel Guidelines • Shipping Industry Feedback • Workable • Practical • Objectives Met IMO Guidelines (2003) Consideration of Mandatory Elements • Market Forces • Shipping Industry • Green Recycling International Ship Recycling Convention

  39. 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 Ships Constructed before 2009 with BW capacity less than 1500 and greater than 5000, treatment technology in use after 2016 Phase in for Treatment System Installation (B-3) 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

  40. Ballast Water Management: • Meeting the Treatment Standard – Treatment Technology • Case Studies • 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 2007 • Ballast capacity of less than 5000m3 but greater than 1500m3, will have to be retrofitted with a ballast water treatment system by 2014. • Existing VLCC – delivered 2003 • Ballast 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.

  41. 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 history

  42. 13G Category 1 - non PL/SBT (pre-MARPOL) tankers out by 2005 Category 2/3 out by 2010 or 2015 subject to administrations Double bottom or side tankers until 25 years 13H Heavy grades of oil in double hull tankers Provisions for some heavy crude oils, double bottom/side tankers and domestic trade OPA90 schedule/size limit different Conversion to PL/SBT - DH AnnexII revision not phase out, but will shut SH tankers out of vegoil+ trades as from 2007 • Phase out Regulations

  43. Special provisions 13 G (5) - double bottom/sides - CAS requirement 13 G (7) - SH trading beyond 2010/25 years 13 G (8) (b) – entry into ports or offshore terminals (provisions (5), (7) 13 H (5) - double bottom/sides - trading beyond 2010/25 years 13 H (6) (a) - crude oil having a density at 15ºC higher than 900 kg/m3 but lower than 945 kg/m3 13H (6) (b) - 600 tons dwt and above but less than 5,000 tons dwt - SH until 25 years 13 H (7) - exclusively within an area under its jurisdiction, 13 H (8) (b) – entry into ports or offshore terminals (provisions (5), (6) • Phase out

  44. Implementation policies Source: WWW.INTERTANKO.com

  45. Conclusion • Strongindustry performance, but no complacency • Zero tolerance to oil pollution • FormalRegulations 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

  46. Strong responsible, sustainable and respected industry able to influence its own destiny • INTERTANKO’s aim

More Related