northern european panel 31 march 2009 hamburg peter m. swift

37
Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Upload: lisa-benson

Post on 20-Jan-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Northern European Panel

31 March 2009

Hamburg

Peter M. Swift

Page 2: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

INTERTANKO Overview

• Incident Statistics

• Council Agenda

• Criminalisation Update

• Piracy

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Diary Dates

Page 3: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Accidental oil pollution into the sea and tanker trade

Source: INTERTANKO/ITOPF/Fearnleys

1000ts spilt

Billion tonne-miles

Record low pollution in 2008: 2,000 ts

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

19701972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 20080

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000Trade in billion Tonne-miles (Fearnleys)

'000 tonnes spilt in tanker accidents (ITOPF)

Page 4: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Accidental oil pollution into the sea and tanker trade

Source: INTERTANKO/ITOPF/Fearnleys

10001000ts spiltts spilt

Billion Billion tonne-milestonne-miles

Record low pollution in 2008: 2,000 ts

0.0

0.7

1.4

2.1

2.8

3.5

1970s 1980s 1990s PR00s

0

21

42

63

84

105

1000 ts spilt

'0000 bntonne-miles

- 63% -3% -81%

Page 5: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Tanker Incidents and accidental pollution

Number incidentsNumber incidents

Based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + othersBased on data from LMIU, ITOPF + others

0

210

420

630

840

1050

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

120

240

360

480

600

Misc

Security

Fire/Expl

Hull & Machinery

Grounded

Coll/Contact

Oil pollution

2009 is a projection based on 68 days

Page 6: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Tanker incidents 2008 by type

Source: INTERTANKO/LMIU/various

Fire / Explosion 6%

Security8%

Grounding 16%

Collision / contact 28%

Misc / unknown

14%

Collision/contact

Grounding

Fire/Explosion

Hull & machinery

Misc/unknown

Hostilities

312 reported tanker incidents

2008

Hull & Machinery (28%), 87 of which 60 engine related+ 3 black outs

Page 7: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Tanker groundings incidents

Number incidentsNumber incidents

Based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + othersBased on data from LMIU, ITOPF + others

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

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

Page 8: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Tanker hull & machinery incidents

Number incidentsNumber incidents

Based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + othersBased on data from LMIU, ITOPF + others

0

100

200

300

400

500

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

Engine

Hull & Machinery

Split engine and other Hull & Machinery

Page 9: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Tanker Engine incidents

Number incidentsNumber incidents

Based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + othersBased on data from LMIU, ITOPF + others

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Engine

Other Hull & Machinery

Page 10: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Tanker Engine incidents

Number incidentsNumber incidents

Based on data from LMIU, ITOPF + othersBased on data from LMIU, ITOPF + others

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 4 3   7 9.7

Total 79 119 30 228 15.6

Page 11: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Council Agenda – 13 May 2009, Tokyo

• Corporate Affairs• Piracy status report• Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Report items- Chemical items- Load Line Zones – Off South Africa- Criminalisation of Seafarers - update- Paris MoU – New Inspection Regime- Human Element – Roll out of TOTS- EU and US Issues

Page 12: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Criminalisation of Seafarers - Update

• EU Ship Source Pollution Directive

• “Hebei Spirit” officers

• Support for:IMO/ILO Guidelines on the “Fair Treatment of Seafarers in the Event of a Maritime Accident”

Page 13: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

New Inspection Regime – Paris MoU

Better targeting !!!

“ Every ship eligible for a periodic inspection as follows:

• High Risk Ship (HRS) every 5-6 months• Standard Risk Ship (SRS) every 10-12 months• Low Risk Ship (LRS) every 24-36 months ”

Page 14: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Piracy

• Malacca Straits

• Nigeria / Gulf of Guinea

• Somalia – Gulf of Aden / W Indian Ocean

Page 15: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Piracy - Somalia

Guidance to Industry

Generic: • IMO Circular 623 (Rev 3)

Region Specific:• UN Contact Group: Best Management

Practices

• OCIMF/INTERTANKO/Industry Guide: Piracy - The East Africa/Somalia Situation

Practical Measures to Avoid, Deter or Delay Piracy Attacks

Page 16: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Piracy

Guidance for Gulf of Aden / Somalia

• Pre-transit:Assess RiskPlan self-defensive measuresRegister with MSCHOAIF appropriate, join Group Transit

• During transit: Stay alertReport to UKMTOFollow “best practices”

Page 17: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Piracy

INTERTANKO activities

Documentary Committee:Developed Piracy Model Clauses

IMO: Member of Correspondence Group revising MSC Guidance CircularIndustry spokesperson at Djibouti meeting finalising regional code

UN:Member of Best Practices Working GroupObserver at UN Contact Group

EU Naval Coordination:Part-time secondee as Merchant Navy Liaison Officer

US Congress:Testimony on International Piracy

International:Interfaces with national governments

PLUS REGULAR SECURITY BULLETINS TO MEMBERS

Page 18: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Piracy

United Nations Contact Group

• WG 1 : measures to improve the coordination of, and information sharing between, the various naval forces present in the region and their interfacing with civilian shipping

• WG 2 : programmes to facilitate the prosecution of those caught and suspected of piracy

• WG 3: facilitates development of industry “Best Management Practices” to counter piracy and their application within the international shipping community

• WG 4 : communications and outreach strategies for use within Somalia and to the wider international community as part of capacity building programmes - this latter to be in conjunction with other UN programmes already on the ground within the region

Page 19: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

[ Initiatives to Reduce ][ Initiatives to Reduce ]Greenhouse Gas EmissionsGreenhouse Gas Emissions

Shipping has a head start as the most Shipping has a head start as the most energy efficient means of transportenergy efficient means of transport

Page 20: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

20

CO2 Emissions per Unit Loadby Transport Mode

Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Japan): The Survey on Transport Energy 2001/2002 MOL (Japan): Environmental and Social Report 2004

Large Tanker

Large Containership

Railway

Coastal Carrier

Small-size Commercial Truck

Airplane

Standard-size Commercial Truck

100 200 300 400

398

226

49

11

6

3

1

0

Units Relative

Shipping energy efficient

Page 21: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

TANKER SHIPPING A GOOD NEWS STORYTANKER SHIPPING A GOOD NEWS STORY Shipping’s GREEN Credentials

• This car, weighing one tonne, uses 1 litre of fuel to move 20 kms

• This oil tanker uses 1 litre of fuel to move one tonne of cargo 2,500 kms

– more than twice as far as 20 years ago

Page 22: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

TANKER SHIPPING A GOOD NEWS STORYTANKER SHIPPING A GOOD NEWS STORY Shipping’s GREEN Credentials

• One US gallon of fuel moves one ton of freight 423 miles in this railcar

• One US gallon of fuel moves one ton of cargo more than 6,500 miles in this tanker

Page 23: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Reductions in GHG (CO2) EmissionsDRIVERS FOR CHANGE

• Driven hardest by a limited number of governments– Supported mostly by EU governments, plus Japan,

Australia, Canada and a few others– Until recently only limited support in US (mostly

environmental interests)– Relatively little enthusiasm in much of the developing

world, but now changing ?• Environmental Lobby growing

– And becoming more coordinated• Maritime industries showing considerable support

– Proactive involvement – Although “hesitant” on market based instruments

• Economic incentives strong– Fuel savings translate into potentially significant cost

savings; plus incentives for innovation & new technologies

Page 24: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

One particular challenge for the shipping industry- i.e. seaborne trade will continue to grow strongly

Source: Fearnleys/INTERTANKO

IndexIndex

80

100

120

140

160

180

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

Population

Energy use

Seaborne trade

CO2 emission

There has been strong growth in shipping

Trends – Population, Energy Use, Seaborne trade & CO2 emissions

Page 25: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Kyoto Protocol

• Established under UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and adopted in 1997

• Ratified by 181 countries – not the USA• Categorises Annex 1 (Developed) Countries and Non-

Annex 1 (Developing) Countries • Annex 1 are committed to make GHG reductions with set

targets, but also flexible mechanisms • Runs through to 2012, with Conference of Parties (COP15)

to meet in Copenhagen in Dec 2009 to develop successor• Kyoto recognises “common but differentiated

responsibilities”, i.e. developed countries produce more GHGs and should be “responsible” for reductions

• Kyoto looks to IMO to address Shipping and ICAO to address Aviation, and as such these emissions are currently excluded from Kyoto targets

Page 26: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Initiatives underway at the IMO

1998: IMO initiated work on Green House Gas emissions 2003: IMO Assembly adopted Resolution A.963(23): Policies and Practices Related to the Reduction of GHG from Ships Today: Work continues through the MEPC

This year: we can expect MEPC 59 to adopt - Mandatory Energy Efficiency Design Index for new ships Ship Energy Management Plan – existing ships: - Best practices to save energy used by the ship - Use of voluntary Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator

In December: the outcome(s) of MEPC 59 will be presented to UNFCCC COP15 meeting in Copenhagen

Page 27: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Initiatives underway at the IMO

Ship Performance Index: CO2 / work done

e.g. tonnes of CO2 produced per tonne mile of cargo

• Energy efficiency design index mandatory for new -ships incentivises designers and builders. At the next stage: The ship’s design index should be less than a maximum limit to be set by regulations.The maximum value will then be lowered over time.

• Voluntary energy efficiency operational indicator - measures efficiency of ship in service.A management tool for owners and charterers to measure energy efficiency on a voyage. Incentivises the owner to keep hull and machinery “clean” and charterer to use the ship efficiently – capacity, routing and speed.

Page 28: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

SEMP: Examples of Best Practicesfor tanker emissions & energy efficiency

1. Programme for Measuring and Monitoring Ship Efficiency2. Voyage Optimization Programme

1. Speed selection optimization2. Optimised route planning3. Trim Optimization

3. Propulsion Resistance Management Programme1. Hull Resistance2. Propeller Resistance

4. Machinery Optimisation Programme1. Main Engine monitoring and optimisation2. Optimisation of lubrication as well as other machinery and equipment

5. Cargo Handling Optimization1. Cargo vapours control procedure on all crude tankers (80-90% reduction of

cargo vapours)2. Cargo temperature control optimization

6. Energy Conservation Awareness Plan1. On board and on shore training and familiarisation of company’s efficiency

programme2. Accommodation-specific energy conservation programme

162

168

174

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 % SMCR

Engineshaft power

SFO

C

ME/ME-C 100% SMCR optimised

MC/MC-C 100% SMCR optimised

ME/ME-C Part load optimised

3-4g/kWh

Economy mode:

3-4g/kWh

Page 29: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

IMO is also reviewing possible economic measures (instruments) to reduce CO2 emissions

• Emissions Trading Scheme • Bunker Levy• GHG Compensation Scheme• Hybrids of above• Other, e.g. differentiated charges

Industry has established Guiding principles and believe any measure should:

• Be effective in reducing global GHG emissions• Be binding on and applicable to all ships• Be cost effective• Not distort competition• Support sustainable environmental development without penalising

trade growth• Promote technical innovation and leading technologies• Be practical, transparent, fraud-free, easy to administer

Page 30: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Market Based instruments

Key issues:

• Global versus regional ?• Who administers ?• Still needed – if other industry initiatives in place ?

ETS• Sets Cap – reduces over time• Open versus Closed system ?• Value of carbon – different schemes

Levy• Does not set cap• A tax on fuel (used)

GHG Compensation scheme• Does not set cap• A tax for a good cause – i.e. a charity !

Page 31: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Initiatives already under way- parallel voluntary measures

For most ship types, some form of :• Speed optimisation• Voyage optimisation• Capacity optimisation

is already in hand.

For Tankers:• Liaison is encouraged between owners and charterers to optimise vessel speed and voyage schedules

http://www.ocimf.com/view_document.cfm?id=1147

Page 32: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Other initiatives under discussion

Pending the setting of mandatory upper limits for the Energy Efficiency Design Index of new ships, there exists the potential for:

• The Establishment of a Reference Value for a New Ship (i.e. a Target)

• Development of a Rating System relative to the Reference Value

Similar to the performance rating of white goods

Page 33: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

Other initiatives already under way- parallel voluntary measures

Ports / terminals• Ports developing Environmental Ship Index (for pollutants and GHGs)

• Incentives to improve port efficiency• Reward environmentally friendly ships with lower port dues

Page 34: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

UNCTAD ConferenceMaritime Transport and the Climate Change Challenge

Engine Design

Fuel Efficiency

Gain

Engine derating < 3.5%

Diesel electric drives 5-30%

Combined diesel electric

and diesel mechanical drives

<4%

Waste heat recovery <10%

Enhanced engine tuning and part load operation

<4%

Common rail engine <1%

New

Bu

ild

Ret

ro-f

it

Op

erat

ion

al

Source: International Transport Forum 2009, OECD

Estimates of fuel efficiency improvements are drawn from (Wartsila, 2008), (Green, Winebrake, & Corbett, 2008), (Bond, 2008)

Tanker/Bulker

Container

Ro-ro

Ferry-Cruise

Offshore Supply

Page 35: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

UNCTAD ConferenceMaritime Transport and the Climate Change Challenge

Propulsion Systems

Fuel Efficiency

Gain

Wing thrusters <10%

Counter-rotating propellers <12%

Optimised propeller-hull interface <4%

Propeller-rudder Unit <4%

Optimised propeller blade sections <2%

Propeller tip Winglets <4%

Propeller nozzle <5%

Propeller Efficiency Monitoring <4%

Efficient Propeller Speed Modulation <5%

Pulling Thruster <10%

Wind power: Flettner rotor <30%

Wind power: Kites & Sails <20%

New

Bu

ild

Ret

ro-f

it

Op

erat

ion

al Tanker/Bulker

Container

Ro-ro

Ferry-Cruise

Offshore Supply

Page 36: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

DIARY DATES 2009

01 Apr Chemical Tanker Sub-committee Americas, Houston02 Apr Hellenic Mediterranean Panel, Athens23 Apr Members’ Seminar, Singapore24 Apr Crisis Preparedness &Media Awareness Workshop,

Singapore 27 Apr Asian Regional Panel, Shanghai

12 May Chartering Seminar, Tokyo13-15 May Annual Tanker Event 2009,Tokyo13 May Associate Members Committee, Tokyo19 May Vetting Committee, Singapore20 May Vetting Seminar, Singapore

09 Jun Chemical Tanker Committee, Oslo09 Jun Norshipping: Boat Cruise and BBQ, Oslo

09 Sep Human Element in Shipping Committee, Copenhagen

Page 37: Northern European Panel 31 March 2009 Hamburg Peter M. Swift

THANK YOUFor more information, please visit:

www.intertanko.com www.poseidonchallenge.com

www.shippingfacts.comwww.maritimefoundation.com