physical attraction: chemoil in singapore, fujairah and … · 2016. 1. 7. · volume 4 number 6...

www.bunkerspot.com Volume 4 Number 6 December 2007 / January 2008

PHYSICAL ATTRACTION:Chemoil in Singapore, Fujairah and Rotterdam

bunkerspot December 2007 / January 2008 3www.bunkerspot.com

Bunkerspot is an integrated news and intelligence service for the international bunker industry. The bi-monthly magazine and 24/7 electronic news service, www.bunkerspot.com, both provide highly-specific information on all aspects of the marine fuels industry. Bunkerspot Magazine (published in February, April, June, August, October and December) annual subscription rate, including unlimited access to the website www.bunkerspot.com, is $430 / £225 / 315. ISSN 1741-6981. Copyright Petrospot Limited © 2008. All rights reserved. Published by Petrospot Limited, a dynamic independent publishing, training and events organisation, focused on providing information resources for the transportation, energy and maritime industries.

Disclaimer: Bunkerspot is an editorially independent magazine and electronic news information service. The information contained in the magazine and website is presented in good faith. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Petrospot Limited, which does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in Bunkerspot. Nor does Petrospot accept responsibility for errors or omissions or their consequences.

No part of Bunkerspot may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photographic, recorded or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Designed by Matthew Stuart.

Head Office:Petrospot LimitedPetrospot HouseSommerville CourtTrinity WayAdderburyOxfordshire OX17 3SNEngland Tel: +44 1295 81 44 55Fax: +44 1295 81 44 66Email: [email protected]: www.bunkerspot.com

Publishing Manager / EditorIan TaylorTel: +44 1295 81 44 55Mobile: +44 7876 70 45 41Email: [email protected]

PublisherLlewellyn Bankes-HughesTel: +44 1295 81 44 55Mobile: +44 7768 57 44 30Email: [email protected]

Associate EditorLesley Bankes-HughesTel: +44 1295 81 44 55Email: [email protected]

ReporterDavid WatermanTel: +44 1295 81 44 55Email: [email protected]

Advertising and SalesRia ArmstrongTel: +44 1295 81 44 55Email: [email protected]

Subscription and Events CoordinatorRobyn CamilleriTel: +44 1295 81 44 55Email: [email protected]

Events ManagerLuci Llewellyn-JonesTel: +44 1295 81 44 55Mobile: +44 7775 92 42 24Email: [email protected]

Events and Marketing Executive Alison ParsonsTel: +44 1295 81 44 55Email: [email protected]

Events Sales ManagerLuke Hallam EvansTel: +44 1295 81 44 55Mob: +44 7815 86 73 52Email: [email protected]

AccountsMiles WalshTel: +44 1295 81 44 55Email: [email protected]

Cover Photo:Courtesy of Chemoil Energy

NEWSBunker Markets and Prices 6

Europe 8

Americas 12

Africa and Mideast 14

Asia Pacific 15

COMPANY PROFILEIan Taylor quizzes Adrian Tolson on Chemoil’s plans to become a major bunker supply force in Rotterdam, Singapore and Fujairah 16

COUNTY PROFILEDavid Waterman looks at the Canadian bunker market 20

LEGAL ISSUESDutch lawyers Carel Baron van Lynden and Marcel Verhagen assess the benefits of using TAMARA arbitration in bunker dispute resolution 24

BUNKERSPOT WORLD MAPGlobal prices and news at a glance 26

OPERATIONAL ISSUESIn the second installment of our series on barging, Buffalo Marine reports on the efforts it has made to improve and innovate its bunkering operations 28

Capt. Howard Snaith, INTERTANKO’s Marine Director, talks to Bunkerspot about the significance of hosting the Terminal Vetting Database on the Q88.com website 32

David Plummer unveils some of the new capabilities on offer from Pole Star’s Fleet Manager product 34

TECHNICAL ISSUESDaniel Kane, VP of Propulsion Dynamics, talks to Bunkerspot about the role of hull performance monitoring in achieving fuel conservation 38

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUESDavid Waterman looks at the potential of biodiesel as an alternative fuel for the shipping industry 40

Jon Watson of Razaghi Meyer International considers how the propaganda machine may be undermining the aims of MARPOL 44

SECURITY ISSUESStan Ayscue of Securewest International looks at global security issues in maritime energy transportation 47

EVENTSEvents and training course diary 49

NETWORKINGPeople on the move, and a review of the latest BunkerNews Directory 50

Contents

&www.bunkerspot.com

A one-year subscription is only £225/$430 for both the magazine

and unlimited website access

4 December 2007 / January 2008 bunkerspotwww.bunkerspot.com

Bunker Markets & Prices

200

300

400

500

600Houston 380

Singapore 380

Fujairah 380

Rotterdam 380

D J F M A M J J A S O N

400

600

800

1000Houston MDO

Singapore MDO

Fujairah MDO

Rotterdam MDO

D J F M A M J J A S O N

380 CST Fuel Oil

Moving in line with crude oil markets, bunker fuel and marine distillate prices rose steadily in October and for much of November, before dipping after the late November US Thanksgiving holiday.

The rising cost of crude oil in October and November could be attributed to several factors, not least the weakening dollar, while the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) limits on production remained tight. Instability in the Mideast region also played its part in pushing up the price.

The price of crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) came within a few cents of the $100 a barrel mark in the days leading up to Thanksgiving. While this caused a stir in the markets, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez insisted

that this was a ‘fair price’. In fact, Chavez told an OPEC summit that crude oil prices could even double to $200 a barrel if the US were to make any attempts to attack Iran.

After Thanksgiving, however, the price of crude oil on NYMEX slid back to around $90 a barrel. Trying to explain the dip, analysts pointed to reports that some OPEC members had let it be known that they would be willing to increase oil exports to take the heat out of the market. The analysts also said that the market had been artificially buoyed up by traders who had been ‘chasing the historic $100 a barrel mark’.

Another factor which has – for the moment at least – brought oil prices back from the $100-a-barrel brink, is the release, in early December, of a US intelligence report which

concluded that Iran had halted its work on the development of nuclear weapons some four years ago.

The US President George W. Bush said that the report did not let Iran off the hook completely. Clearly, he reasoned, Iran did have plans to develop nuclear weapons in the past, and so it may decide to do so again in the future. ‘Look,’ said Bush, ‘Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.’ However, it was generally felt the report would make it significantly harder for the US Administration to win international support for a military foray in Iran.

So, the overall trend for bunker fuel and oil prices generally has been upward. Despite the dip in early December, bunker

PR

ICE

$/t

onne

PR

ICE

$/t

onne


Company Profile: Chemoil Energy

At the recent ARACON Conference in Amsterdam (17-19 October), there was much talk

of bunkering being at the ‘crossroads’, with shipowners and bunker suppliers desperately looking for direction on tough issues such as sulphur emissions and coping with spiralling crude prices. But one speaker – Adrian Tolson, Chemoil’s Vice President for sales and marketing – saw a ‘road paved with opportunity’.

The challenges ahead are signif icant, conceded Tolson, but so are the potential rewards. Success in this game calls for adaptability and lateral-thinking – qualities more readily associated with independents than the majors. Tolson urged his fellow suppliers to embrace their destiny: ‘Independent bunker suppliers have an unprecedented opportunity to take a more prominent role in the industry as well as be the driver for positive change in the marketplace.’

The time has come, added Tolson, ‘for the independents to stop hiding!’

Certainly, no-one could accuse either Chemoil or its charismatic chairman and founder, Robert Chandran, of being shy and retiring.

In preparing for my interview with Tolson, I revisited a profile on Chemoil which I wrote for the November 1995 edition of the now-defunct BunkerNews. The headline was a bold statement of intent: ‘Chemoil Sets Its Sights On Controlled Global Expansion’. The article went on to look at how Chemoil had first established itself as a physical supplier in San Francisco and Los Angeles/Long Beach in 1982 before making an ambitious assault on the world stage.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Chemoil opened offices in Singapore, Hong Kong, Copenhagen, Sydney, the Philippines and Panama. But when I came to write the BunkerNews article in 1995, many of these international outposts had been closed and – apart from a relatively small operation in the Philippines – Chemoil’s bunker supply operations were again concentrated in the US West Coast and Gulf Coast markets.

So, at first glance, talk of ‘global expansion’ may have looked misplaced. The keyword, however, was ‘controlled’. Chemoil had learned some valuable lessons from the

early 1990s. Firstly, it decided that it would henceforth target markets where it could ‘add value’, differentiating itself from its competitors by, for example, offering a full control of its supply chain. Secondly, it determined that it would focus on first-tier bunker ports where it could be assured of supplying large volumes.

Now let’s fast forward to 2007. Over the past 12 years, Chemoil has indeed followed through on its international mission. The company has returned to Panama, and this time it has carved out a market niche which is both growing and profitable. In the US, Chemoil is now stronger than ever in its core ports, seizing the largest market share on the US West Coast and leading the supply of cleaner fuel products. There have been some false moves – a short-lived foray in Istanbul springs to mind – but the ‘controlled expansion’, aided by support from Itochu Corporation and latterly an initial public offering (IPO) on the Singapore stock exchange, has been impressive.

Most importantly – and very much in keeping with the continuing focus on first-tier ports – Chemoil is building up physical supply operations in Rotterdam and Singapore and is now poised to enter the Fujairah market. This will put Chemoil in a uniquely powerful position – the only bunker company with full control of its supply operations in all three of the world’s major bunkering ports.

Given this context, it was clearly time to quiz Tolson on Chemoil’s plans for 2008 in general, and its activities in the big three ports in particular.

Ian Taylor (IT): What is the current situation with the new operation in Fujairah?

Adrian Tolson (AT): We announced our new partnership with Gulf Petrol Supplies (GPS) in February 2007, and we will start supplying in January. Some of the tanks at the GPS/Chemoil terminal will be ready for the launch and we will also be using our own bunker barges for delivery. The GPS/Chemoil joint venture is for the storage only. Chemoil will be handling the bunker sales and the barging.

We will be starting relatively slowly, as we wait for the full tankage to become available, but we see this as a market with tremendous potential. Total sales are around 10 million

Ian Taylor quizzes Adrian Tolson on Chemoil’s plans to become a major bunker supply force in Rotterdam,

Singapore and Fujairah

Adrian Tolson is Chemoil’s Vice President for Sales and Marketing.

Contact:Adrian TolsonChemoil EnergyTel: +1 415 268 2740Fax: +1 415 268 2704Mob: +1 415 420 0767Email: [email protected]



metric tonnes (mt) and there are currently just three suppliers in the market, so there are clearly opportunities for another physical supplier.

IT: And what is happening in Singapore?AT: January will be a very important

month for us in Singapore as well. Of course, we already have a presence here. We returned to the Singapore market in 1999, but the bunker supply volumes have been small compared to our ex-wharf business. With the opening of the Helios Terminal on Jurong Island, we will be taking the physical bunker supply operation up to a new level.

We will have a superbly-equipped land terminal and we will operate our own barges.

This will be a total Chemoil business, from tank to ship. We will have full control of the fuels, the terminals and the barges.

The terminal will have capacity for about 448,000 mt of fuel. We will probably use about 50% of this – for both bunkering and ex-wharf business – and lease the remainder to other players.

We won’t be fully operational until the end of January but we will look to promote our business aggressively in 2008 to build up our market share.

IT: To complete the picture in the big three ports, how is Chemoil developing its operation in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) market?

AT: We completed the acquisition of Allround Fuel Trading (AFT) Chemoil in early 2006 and the company – renamed

Chemoil Europe BV – is now 100% owned by us.

In October, we bought a 49% stake in Burando Holding, the parent company of FTS/Hofftrans, which will give us a strong position in the barging market.

We had already been using FTS/Hofftrans barges for bunker deliveries. The company is definitely seen as ‘cutting edge’: its 21-strong f leet includes top-of-the-line barges like the Maxima. We therefore thought that there was good fit and – given our current commitment to investing in terminalling and barging assets – buying into the company seemed the natural thing to do.

Ultimately, it will lead to even closer cooperation and there will be benefits both for Chemoil and our customers.

Customers will know that they are dealing with a supplier who can take full

responsibility for the supply chain, with direct, hands-on control.

For Chemoil, the chance to capture some of the margins on barging is obviously attractive. It will also make us operationally stronger and allow us to extend operations across the ARA and the other ports in the region. We see that other players in the ARA market – Verbeke, Frisol and Wiljo, for example – benefit from this approach.

IT: Speaking of the ARA market, you used the recent ARACON Conference to advance your view that this was – or at least, could be – the ‘golden age of the independent supplier’. What did you mean by that?

AT: The bunker industry is facing a lot of challenges. The increasing need for low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) may grab the headlines, but it is not the whole story. As players in the supply chain, we have to keep

‘Chemoil is building up physical supply operations

in Rotterdam and Singapore and is now poised to

enter the Fujairah market. This will put Chemoil in a uniquely powerful position – the only bunker company

with full control of its supply operations in all

three of the world’s major bunkering ports’



focusing on ways to improve our bunker f leets and our terminals.

We get a sense that the majors can be unsure of what they are doing in the business, or where they are going. They don’t seem keen to commit the dollars and cents.

At the moment, it is the key independents – the ‘major independents’ – who are not only pledging their commitment to the market, but backing up their words with hard investment. Furthermore, they are proving that they can make a return on that investment.

Chemoil is a prime example. We have talked about our new developments in Fujairah, Singapore and Rotterdam, but of course we are also constantly investing in our operations in the US and the Americas. Our new offshore operation in the Gulf of Mexico is a good example. In Panama, we are now set to build a new storage terminal at Cristobal. We have leased storage for about 65,000 mt of bunker fuel at the moment, but when the new terminal is f inished in about two years time it will have capacity for 245,000 mt of fuel and a marine pier capable of berthing Aframax vessels and up to four bunker barges. Our goal is to have a terminal at Balboa as well, so we can serve both ends of the Canal.

For years, independent bunker companies have been seen as players in a bottom-of-the-barrel business, largely overlooked by the investment banking community. That certainly isn’t the case today!

Independents are making more money, so they are attracting more investment. This in turn means that they have more opportunity to invest, building bigger and better terminals and barges.

The opportunities are there, the question is: can we seize them?

IT: The new-found interest in bunkers is a double-edge sword. Yes, there have been IPOs and more interest from big investors; but the media spotlight has also focused on the risks of pollution and oil spills. How do you think the bunker industry should respond to this?

AT: When bunkering does make the news, it is usually for the wrong reasons. The recent oil spill from the Cosco Busan in San Francisco is a case in point. Of course, the accident is not the fault of the bunker industry, but the spill has been a large one

and some of the media reports latched onto the idea that fuel oil is this toxic substance which should be banned from all ships.

For years, no-one took much notice of bunkering, so it is not surprising that there is a lot of general ignorance about the industry.

As an industry, we must engage with the general public, governments and the media, and show them that we are ready to embrace the environmental movement as much as possible. It may not be an easy process, but if we work together we will f ind a solution that will be palatable to both sides.

Bunkering is becoming an increasingly high-profile industry, so there is nowhere to hide. Nor should we need to hide: we are making the investment required to keep our industry clean and environmentally responsible. We are upgrading our barge f leets to double-hulled vessels; and we are ahead of the game in terms of looking for sources of low sulphur fuel. Our customers, the shipowners, are voluntarily switching to cleaner fuels and also investing heavily in new ship designs that give extra protection to bunker tanks. We should be open and honest about what we are doing, because we have a good story to tell.

IT: On the subject of low sulphur fuel, do you forsee the introduction of SECAs on the US West Coast and other regions?

AT: I think there will be SECAs on the US coastline sooner rather than later, possibly even within the next couple of years. California has made significant progress in terms of addressing emissions issues and it won’t be long before this filters across the rest of the US. There is also the possibility that there could be a universal switch to distillates-only within 15 or 20 years. The practicality of this still remains to be seen and whilst this could provide consistency across the board, I think many operators would welcome the f lexibility to tackle emissions in the best way for their business, whether that’s through using cleaner fuels, new technology or a combination of both.

The key thing is that Chemoil is committed to the bunker industry for the long term. Even if Friends of the Earth get their way and residual fuel is banned, goods will still have to be carried around the world by ships, and ships will need fuel. Chemoil will be there to supply that fuel – whatever that kind of fuel that may be!

‘Independents are making more money, so they are

attracting more investment. This in turn means that they

have more opportunity to invest, building bigger and

better terminals and barges’


Spotlight on Canada

The main bunkering areas in Canada can be broken down into four regions: Vancouver, Montreal,

the Great Lakes, and the Atlantic Coast. In all regions Canada’s major ports compete directly for cargo with ports in the United States. Canada’s merchant f leet consists of dry bulk carriers along with tankers, general cargo vessels and ferries.

The marine sector is a significant provider of passenger transportation services. The cruise industry continues to grow in all regions with more than two million foreign cruise passengers handled by Canada’s major ports annually.

As well as the regulations imposed by Marpol Annex VI, Canada has this year introduced its own legislation on the sale of marine fuel. The new law requires all marine distillates sold within Canada to contain no more than 0.5% sulphur. Although not yet regulated by law, fuel oil sold in Canada tends to contain less than 1.5% sulphur.

VancouverThe Port of Vancouver is the largest and busiest port in Canada. In North America, it ranks number one in total foreign exports. In 2006, it handled 79.4 million metric tonnes (mt) of cargo, up 4% from 2005’s 76.5 million mt. It trades $43 billion in goods with more than 90 trading economies annually. Its main trading partners are in Asia, and trading is sensitive to the swings of the Asian economy. It is predominantly bulk cargo that goes through the port.

Vancouver is a safe, all-weather, naturally deep harbour that requires no dredging. Unlike other bunkering regions in Canada, suppliers there deliver fuel all year round. It is the home port for the Vancouver-Alaska cruise from May to September - one of the world’s premier cruise routes - and suppliers have told Bunkerspot that this significantly affects the volume of marine fuel sold. In 2001, sales tax on bunker fuel was abolished in British Columbia, and suppliers say that this has significantly helped them since. Product has to be brought into the area as there are no local refineries producing significant volumes of bunker fuel.

Last spring saw the arrival in Vancouver of a tanker-barge supplying biodiesel to cruise ships. The initiative is said to have

been very successful, and the owners, Royal Caribbean International, may be returning the barge next year to continue the supply. Vancouver prides itself as an environmentally friendly port. According to the Vancouver Port Authority, bunker fuel in the Port of Vancouver is already among the cleanest and least polluting in the world. Since 1 April 2007, the harbour dues for tugs and barges have been based on emission standards. It seems likely that Vancouver would be one of the areas of Canada that would welcome a Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA).

The three main suppliers in Vancouver are Imperial Oil, ICS Petroleum and Marine Petrobulk, representing about 15%, 40% and 45% of the market respectively.

Imperial Oil can supply all grades of fuel oil and marine gasoil (MGO), delivering its product via its chartered barge – the ITB Provider. The ITB Provider has a capacity of 2,200 mt and can deliver fuel oil and distillates simultaneously with a pumping rate of up to 500 mt an hour. The minimum order is 250 mt for fuel oil and 50 mt for MGO. Imperial gets its fuel from its refinery 1,100 kilometres (km) away in Edmonton, Alberta, via rail truck.

ICS Petroleum sources its product from refineries in the US such as Tesoro, and also from Imperial Oil. ICS has two barges – the 2,500 deadweight tonne (dwt) PT25, and the 3,600 dwt PT36 – and the company also uses these barges as f loating storage. The barges can supply all grades of fuel, but about 90% of the fuel ICS sells is bunker fuel. The lion’s share of business with ICS goes through traders, and is done on a spot market basis. Any contracts are usually with cruise ships.

Marine Petrobulk operates four barges: the 2,100 mt PB14, the 1,900 mt PB12, and the 2,900mt PB20 are all dual pumping barges discharging at rates up to 400 mt per hour. The latest addition, the double hulled 4,300 mt PB32, is the fastest pumping barge in the Vancouver market at up 700 mt tonnes per hour. As well as the Vancouver harbour, Marine Petrobulk also supplies the surrounding west coast Canadian ports. The company can supply all grades of fuel. Deliveries of less than 100 mt of fuel oil are available by barge. MDO and MGO can be delivered in parcels as small as 10 mt (a minimum delivery charge is applicable). Marine Petrobulk sources its product from ConocoPhillips.

David Waterman looks at the Canadian bunker

market

Canada

Spotlight on Canada

Vessels must call at Vancouver inner harbour anchorage, Victoria anchorage or Port Angeles for a ‘bunkers only’ call.

MontrealLinked to more than 100 countries by many shipping lines, the Port of Montreal is located on one of the largest navigable waterways in the world, the St Lawrence River, and it offers the shortest route between major European ports and North American markets. Situated 1,600 km inland from the Atlantic, it is the international port closest to North America’s industrial heartland.

The main suppliers in Montreal are Petro-Canada, Shell, Kildair Service and Imperial Oil, all of which can supply the main grades of fuel. According to Hampton Bunkering, fuel can be shipped via truck anywhere up the St Lawrence River (at a cost). Petro-Canada operates a 120,000 barrel-a-day (b/d) refinery, while Shell has a 125,000 b/d plant.

There are two pipelines supplying fuel, one owned by Imperial Oil and the other by Petro-Canada. Imperial Oil does not have a

refinery in Montreal, but can ship its product from its refinery in Sarnia, Ontario.

Petro-Canada stores about 25,000 mt of fuel oil and about 100,000 mt of distillates at any one time. All deliveries are made ex-pipe or by road tank wagon (rtw). Sales of fuel are usually made via Montreal brokers and traders. Most business is done on a spot market rather than contract basis, as the quality and quantity of fuel cannot always be assured. There were problems of supply in September this year when the quality of fuel did not meet the company’s specifications. Petro-Canada may soon be building a coker for its refinery, which would suggest a move away from the production of fuel oil.

Shell is the major supplier in Montreal because it is the only one that has its own barge, the 2,500 mt capacity Arca. Kildair Service has a 15-20% share of the market in the area. The company has a storage capacity of 200,000 mt of bunker fuel.

The traders that operate in Montreal are Hampton Bunkering, Reiter Petroleum Inc and ICS Petroleum.

The Great LakesThe Great Lakes provide vital transportation links between the heavily industrialised cities in the area, with the St Lawrence Seaway providing a gateway to Europe and beyond. According to one supplier, there is ‘wind in the air’ about a SECA in the region. The main bunkering centres are Hamilton and Sarnia.

The Port of Hamilton is located at the west end of Lake Ontario. Major cargoes include dry bulk, liquid bulk and general cargo with total annual tonnage averaging 12 million mt, of which approximately 1.5 million mt is overseas cargo and is visited by more than 700 ships annually. The port authority offers 8,900 m of docking facilities and 10 shipping piers for cargo storage.

The only supplier in Hamilton is Provmar Fuels Inc., but it does compete with other suppliers in Sarnia, Windsor and Montreal. Provmar is owned by the Canadian shipping company Upper Lakes Group Inc., and frequently supplies its parent company’s ships. Provmar can supply

HAMPTON BUNKERING LTD

Worldwide Bunkers since 1970

999 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Suite 615Montreal, Quebec, H3A 3L4, CanadaTel: 514-288-2818 Fax: [email protected]

Sylvia Kartanowicz – Susan Cox

Spotlight on Canada

Port Bunker suppliers Fuel grades available Supply infrastructure

Vancouver ICS Petroleum, Marine Petrobulk, Imperial Oil

All grades of fuel oil, MDO and MGO Barge

Montreal Petrocanada, Shell, Kildair Service, Imperial Oil

All grades of fuel oil, MDO and MGO Ex-pipe, barge, rtw

Hamilton Provmar All grades of fuel oil, MDO and MGO Tanker-barge

Sarnia Imperial Oil All grades of fuel oil, MDO and MGO Ex-pipe

Windsor Sterling All grades of fuel oil, MDO and MGO Ex-pipe

Halifax Imperial Oil All grades of fuel oil, and MGO Barge, rtw (for MGO)

Key: MGO=marine gasoil; MDO = marine diesel oil; rtw = road tank wagon

other ports in Western Lake Ontario via its self-propelled tanker/barge, the MT Hamilton Energy, which has a capacity of 1,300 mt. The company can supply all grades of fuel oil and distillates, all of a high standard, and has a storage capacity of 11,000 mt and 3,000 mt respectively, sourcing its fuel from refineries in Southern Ontario. Provmar does not supply fuel from late December to mid-March because of the St Lawrence Seaway closure.

In the Port of Windsor, Sterling is the main supplier and can make deliveries of all grades of fuel ex-pipe. The company already has a total storage capacity of 750,000 mt and plans to double this within the next five years.

Imperial Oil operates a ref inery and supplies bunker fuel in Sarnia, at the southern tip of Lake Huron. Shell previously supplied fuel in Port Colborne, Ontario, although this terminal permanently closed earlier in 2007.

Fuel oil availability in the region can be tight, especially in September/October when local refineries direct more of their product to the asphalt market in order to take advantage of increased road building activity before the onset of winter. Provmar told Bunkerspot that in the last couple of years there has been a big push to produce

asphalt rather than fuel oil. Generally the quality of the fuel available on the Great Lakes is good, and meets RME 25 and DMA specifications.

The East CoastWhile the main centres of bunkering on the Atlantic coast used to include Saint John, New Brunswick, bunkering operations in the region are now somewhat restricted to Halifax. Irving Oil’s refinery pulled out of the local bunkering market in New Brunswick and now exports most of its product. In Newfoundland, North Atlantic Refining can supply 380cst fuel oil and MGO ex-pipe from its ‘Come-By-Chance refinery’, but only to oil tankers working cargo. There are suppliers in the port of

St John’s, Newfoundland, including Irving Oil and Petro-Canada, but they only supply marine gasoil.

Halifax is a deep-water port 45-50 feet and is the only port on the east coast that can handle fully laden post-Panamax container vessels with high labour productivity – an average of 25 lifts per hour. In Halifax the main supplier is Imperial Oil, which has its own 85,000 b/d refinery in Dartmouth. Imperial can supply all grades of fuel oil and gasoil, and can deliver fuel all year round. Its barge, The Imperial Dartmouth, carries 1,650 mt of fuel oil and 450 mt of MGO, and is equipped with onboard meters and blenders. Sales of fuel are largely done on a spot market basis. Fuel can be supplied all year round.

REITER PETROLEUM INC.LES PÉTROLES REITER INC.

YOUR PRINCIPAL WORLDWIDE BUNKER SUPPLIERS

AS INTERNATIONAL BUNKER BROKERS/TRADERS REITER PETROLEUM INC. CAN OFFER ALL GRADES OF MARINE FUELS AND LUBRICANTS AT

ANY PORT WORLDWIDE AT HIGHLY COMPETITIVE RATES AND SERVICES.

Make the ‘REITER’ choice

CONTACT US WITH YOUR INQUIRIES

625 du President Kennedy AveSuite 705

Montreal, Quebec H3A 1K2Tel: (514) 878-2563Fax: (514) 878-3463

E-mail: [email protected]

The world’s most authoritative book on bunker fuels

BUNKERS‘The book is a classic’ Marine Engineers Review

Order your copy today +44 1295 [email protected] www.bunkerspot.com

‘All aspects of the industry are covered in detail, in accessible language. The section on legal issues and dispute resolution will be of particular interest to lawyers, given what seems to be a global trend towards deteriorating bunker fuels.’

Maritime Advocate

‘A valuable guide to the bunker industry that will promote understanding, raise awareness, increase safety levels and help protect the environment’

Lloyd’s List

‘Fisher and Lux have meticulously updated swathes of the book to reflect the list of new regulations applicable to the bunker industry in recent years, including must-read IMO and EC proposals and legislature sections on sulphur and double hulls.’

Bunkerworld


Legal Issues

The advantages of using arbitration as a fast and efficient way of achieving dispute resolution

within the maritime industry are well-known and understood. The major centres for arbitration in the maritime f ield, London and New York, are, however, often beset by delays and substantial procedural costs. Various arbitration institutes throughout the world are therefore attempting to provide an alternative service to the two major arbitration centres.

In the Netherlands, Transport and Arbitration Rotterdam Amsterdam (TAMARA) arbitration can provide strong expertise for the resolution of disputes in the bunker industry. Rotterdam is one of the biggest bunker ports in the world and has an excellent reputation for the quality of its services to the bunker industry. Most major surveyors and suppliers are located in the Port of Rotterdam, and a number of well-established law firms are also available to assist the industry in the resolution of disputes.

TAMARA was founded in 1987 by the major shipping law firms, the Royal Dutch Association of Shipowners, the Chambers of Commerce of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and other parties involved in the maritime industry. Initially, the arbitrations were undertaken in a laissez faire, laisser passer manner. However, in 2001 the arbitration rules of TAMARA were amended and now specifically describe the standard procedure.

The rules of TAMARA are based on the Dutch Arbitration Act of 1988. Fundamental to the arbitration process is that the tribunal within a Dutch case should always consist of an odd number of arbitrators, thereby differing from the proceedings under the English Arbitration Act when a tribunal can be made up of two arbitrators.

Arbitrators appointed under Dutch law and under the rules of TAMARA should always be impartial and, unless agreed otherwise, should make their decisions in accordance with the rules of law. If all parties explicitly agree, prior to the arbitration, the arbitrators can decide as compositeur aimiable, whereby they can dispense with considerations of the law, and consider the case in hand solely on the basis of what is fair and equitable.

Arbitration proceedings in the Netherlands usually comprise two rounds of exchange of documents and submissions, followed by a hearing before the arbitrators. However, these hearings will not be as extensive as those held in London or New York. In most cases, the hearing will be more of an oral pleading of the case, and will not include a hearing of the witnesses or experts. The tribunal may subsequently render an interim award, ordering the parties to prove their posita, or standpoints, render a final award, or give other directions to the parties as it sees fit. Arbitration proceedings under Dutch law do not allow for a right of appeal unless this has been agreed by the parties under the terms of their arbitration agreement.

There are only limited grounds for the annulment of an arbitration award, and these can be found in Articles 1064 and 1065 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions mainly consider the formal aspects of the arbitration procedure, such as the existence of a valid agreement for arbitration, or conf licts with public policy resulting from an award or the way in which it was rendered. An award annulment may also result if the tribunal is deemed to have gone outside the limits as defined by the parties involved. However, an alleged misinterpretation of the law or the facts by the arbitrators does not give grounds for the annulment of an award.

A major advantage of using arbitration in dispute resolution is that an award can be enforced in almost every country under the provisions of the so-called ‘New York’ Convention, whereas the judgement of a ‘normal’ court is only enforceable in another country if there is some form of treaty between the countries concerned.

Although the name TAMARA may not yet ring an arbitration bell for everyone,

Carel Baron van Lynden and Marcel Verhagen assess the benefits of

using TAMARA arbitration in bunker dispute

resolution

‘A major advantage of using arbitration in dispute resolution is that an award can be enforced in almost every country under the

provisions of the so-called ‘New York’ Convention’

Carel Baron van Lynden is a senior partner with AKD Prinsen Van Wijmen N.V. He specialises in shipping and insurance law, and is active in the bunker industry, representing both shipowners and suppliers.

Marcel Verhagen is one of two founding partners of Jumelet Verhagen Advocaten, which was established in 2002 and specialises in shipping and trade.

Contact:Carel Baron van LyndenAKD Prinsen Van Wijmen N.V.Tel: +31 88 253 5409Email: [email protected]: www.akd.nl

Marcel VerhagenJumelet Verhagen AdvocatenTel: +31 10 217 09 91Email: [email protected]: www.jvlaw.nl


Legal Issues

the procedure is gaining popularity within the maritime industry. What began as an alternative arbitration process for Dutch shipowners and charterers to the London system has now grown to a full service arbitration institute for the maritime industry. TAMARA arbitrators now deal with charter disputes, shipbuilders’ contracts, salvage claims, bunker disputes, and sale and purchase disputes. Also, non-marine-related transport disputes can also be resolved through TAMARA.

The TAMARA rules contained fixed requirements as to how an arbitration must be initiated. An arbitration is deemed to be pending (thus safeguarding a possible time bar) from the moment that the TAMARA Secretariat receives a copy of the notice of arbitration which has been sent to the opposing party. This, therefore, provides an objective way of showing when the arbitration is pending.

The appointment of arbitrators is also regulated within the arbitration process conditions. Each party appoints an arbitrator, and these arbitrators will then jointly appoint a third arbitrator. Arbitrators can be appointed from a list held by TAMARA, but this is not mandatory. Those arbitrators who are on TAMARA’s list have agreed to hourly fees as set down by TAMARA which range from 180 to 225 ($262 to $328).

The TAMARA Rules also describe how an arbitrator should be appointed if the opposing party does not appoint an arbitrator within a set time limit. If this is the case, the President of the Rotterdam District Court will, at the request of one of the parties involved, appoint an arbitrator. The arbitration rules also contain time schedules for such appointments.

In principle, the arbitration proceedings before TAMARA will consist of one round of exchange of written statements and documents after which the arbitrators may decide whether or not reply and rejoinder submissions should be filed. If the parties agree, either before or during the proceedings, to exchange reply and rejoinder submissions, the arbitrators will allow them to do so. Thereafter, the parties will have an opportunity to orally plead the matter.

Signif icantly, the fact that TAMARA arbitration has been chosen does not necessarily mean that the arbitrators will

apply Dutch law. Unless there is a clear choice of law, the arbitrators will decide which law they will apply in accordance with the rules of International Private Law. If this does not happen to be Dutch law, the arbitrators will, if necessary, obtain legal opinions from experts in other particular fields of law.

Furthermore, proceedings held before TAMARA arbitrators do not require that documentation must all be provided in the Dutch language. Arbitration proceedings can be carried out in English, and documents that are made available in English, German or French do not necessarily have to be translated. Of course, if arbitrators do require translations they will be provided, but this is not standard practice.

As stated before, a TAMARA award is not subject to appeal. It may be published in case law magazines, having been anonimised, but if one of the parties involved does not want the award details to be revealed then it cannot be published.

Under Dutch law, discovery or disclosure is unknown. Although there is an article in the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure that obliges parties to submit relevant documents to the Court, there is no stringent disclosure and discovery obligation. This is a major advantage in comparison with proceedings held before English or US arbitration tribunals, and can create significant cost savings and avoid considerable delays.

Finally, finding security for claims is not particularly difficult in the Netherlands, and ship arrest and freezing orders can be quickly obtained. Courts are available at very short notice to hear a lifting request – within hours if need be.

For the bunker industry, TAMARA can therefore offer a serious alternative option for the resolution of disputes. While arbitration under the rules of TAMARA does not prescribe the assistance of lawyers, it is a form of dispute resolution and therefore it is strongly recommended that lawyers are used to act in the proceedings.

Full information about TAMARA can be found at: www.tamara-arbitration.nl. Here may be found the arbitration rules, a reference to the Arbitration Act, the list of arbitrators, and other information necessary for carrying out arbitration in the Netherlands.

‘Significantly, the fact that TAMARA arbitration

has been chosen does not necessarily mean that the

arbitrators will apply Dutch law’

spotlightDecember 2007 / January 2008Key: Prices US$ per metric tonne – d delivered / w ex-wharf / 380 – max 380 centistoke 180 – max 180 centistoke / mdo – marine diesel oil

NEW YORK w380 484180 514mdo 828

HOUSTON w380 473180 487mdo 748

PANAMA w380 494180 526mdo 835

PIRAEUS d380 466180 501mdo 864

LOS ANGELES w380 502180 534mdo 908

BUENOS AIRES d380 n/a180 526mdo 825

SANTOS d380 471180 515mdo 865

CANADAFast-pumping

Vancouver barge(page 12)

UNITED STATESOil spill prompts calls

for bunker fuel ban(see page 12)

UNITED KINGDOM

Artico Energy opens for business(see page 9)

SUEZ EGYPT d380 488180 501mdo 871

FUJAIRAH UAE d380 484180 502mdo 806

DURBAN w380 n/a180 490mdo 863

SINGAPORE d380 482180 494mdo 804

TOKYO d380 529180 541mdo 726

BUSAN d380 502180 529mdo 806

HONG KONG d380 493180 505mdo 818

ROTTERDAM d380 457180 478mdo 764

TRT BUNKERSA division of Barloworld Logistics Africa (Pty) Ltd

For all your marine fuels and lubricant requirements in

Southern Africa

Fax : +27 (0)21 419 5806eMail : [email protected] : +27 (0)82 779 9903

NETHERLANDSShell trials GTL fuel

(see page 9)

SINGAPOREHelios Terminal set

to start(see page 15)

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Chemoil set to launch in Fujairah

(see page 14)

KUWAITKPC launches new

barge(see page 14)

GREECEAegean Marine keeps

growing(see page 8)

JAPANOceanConnect opens

for business(see page 15)

GIBRALTAR d380 484180 509mdo 890


Operational Issues

Pushing bunker laden tank barges to meet the just-in-time demands of maritime

commerce is not the most complicated of ventures. Yet, the changing expectations over the decades and emphasis on zero mistakes due to overriding environmental concerns, has forced companies like Buffalo Marine Service, Inc. to constantly evaluate its bunkering operations.

Buffalo’s President and CEO, Pat Studdert, describes his f irst hands-on bunkering evolution more than three decades ago: ‘It was about seven o’clock in the morning when the tank barge had moored alongside the vessel. One of the vessel’s engineers was watching the barge lay out the transfer equipment. Within minutes, a heated argument unfolded as to whom would connect the hoses. The ship’s engineer adamantly refused to lend a hand while the tug Captain screamed that if they wanted bunkers they had better hook things up. The argument culminated in the engineer hurling his half-empty beer bottle onto the barge – glass scattered everywhere.

‘To this day, I don’t know how that job got done but when I described this awful situation to my father, he merely shrugged his shoulders and told me that it was a tough business and that’s just the way it was.’

That one incident forever remains imprinted in Pat’s memory and drives his quest to effect positive change across his f leet of vessels; amongst his crews; and throughout the continuum of relationships that drive his business. It all began with a two-year course in crew etiquette and customer interface that continues to this day in the form of refresher training.

When Buffalo embarked upon a comprehensive capital improvement programme over a decade ago, Pat insisted on providing his customers with precise and expedited transfers. This took the form of the installation of meters on all new tank barges and the rigorous calibration of those devices. Two pumps per barge were also installed in order to transfer up to 600 metric tonnes (mt) an hour and build redundancy into discharge capability.

Buffalo’s environmental commitment manifested itself in a variety of ways which included:

● purchasing high-tech seals to reduce leakage on all pumps without compromising pump rates

● covering drip pans with expanded metal and grip struts to prevent trash and debris from collecting in these reservoirs

● locating tank barge drains forward as a means of keeping smaller marine diesel oil (MDO) tanks free of contaminants

● instituting a rigorous hose-testing regimen that went beyond industry standards in order to reduce the possibility of premature hose failures

● embarking upon an aggressive new build campaign in order to replace single hull barges with double skins well in advance of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA ’90) deadline (2015)

● designing all new barges in the last decade with raised trunks from bow to stern to increase cargo capacity and allow more complete containment of any deck spills aboard the tank barge itself

● creating a simplified hose connect and disconnect procedure diagram that is shared with the receiving vessel to ensure that nothing is spilled from the hose upon completion of the bunkering operation.

Buffalo was sensitive to the fact that most mistakes had occurred when equipment

In the second installment of our series on barging,

Buffalo Marine reports on the efforts it has made to improve and innovate its

bunkering operations

Pat Studdert is CEO of Buffalo Marine Service Inc., which has been operating bunker barges on the US Gulf Coast more than 70 years.

Contact: Pat Studdert Buffalo Marine Service IncTel: +1 713 923 5571Fax: +1 713 923 5304Web: www.buffalomarine.com


Operational Issues

had failed to perform as anticipated. Hence, to ensure tankermen could more easily prime systems, below-deck pipelines were located as close to the bottom of the tanks as possible. This change also made it easier to strip the tanks. Additionally, Buffalo’s barges are designed so that all deck fittings are run in a straight-forward and common sense fashion to make it easier for crews to grasp valve configurations, view tank numbers and gauge hatches.

Crew safety and ease of operation was another area of focus for Buffalo. Manual heavy metal winch handles were replaced by smooth round discs to avoid injury if a tankerman lost control of the swing booms. In order to enhance the reliability and operability of all booms, they are powered by the engine hydro pumps and winches. Furthermore, bunker operations were better accommodated by replacing hand lines with winches for transverse movement of the cargo boom. Finally, given the ever-increasing size of the vessels requiring bunker fuel in the Houston Ship Channel, all tank barges were equipped with 18 metre (m) cargo booms and 12 m of hose from the boom to the ship.

Perhaps one of the most telling innovations on the part of its President was the construction of the T/B Buffalo Star over 15 years ago. This one-of-a-kind, state-of-the-art blending barge is equipped with micro-motion meters and a fuel controls package that allows bunker suppliers the option of onboard blending to precise specif ications, including the conversion of barrels to tonnes.

Innovations at Buffalo Marine are certainly not limited to equipment: the company has also developed a basic tow-to-vessel communications interface to guard against misaligned expectations. Once the tank barge is alongside, Buffalo personnel methodically walk through the loading process and ensure all involved personnel understand the types of fittings involved, and any and all emergency shut-down

procedures in the event things go awry. Studdert recounted that this practice has reduced confusion between vessels and has bred goodwill with many a foreign crew. This last point was particularly important after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 upon the US.

Studdert recalled the immediate concern local authorities had on 12 September 2001 with the thousands of foreign crewmembers that arrived in the Houston/Texas City/Galveston port complex on a daily basis. The last thing he wanted to see was the development of ill will and suspicion between US and foreign crews. Thus, he embarked upon an unprecedented ‘good will’ campaign where every ship bunkered by a Buffalo vessel received a World Peace Plaque.

Pat spoke admiringly of how well received this project was: ‘It was amazing how crews from around the globe responded to this initiative. I have letters from ship captains and shipowners from Asia, Europe, Central America and all points in between thanking Buffalo for its generosity of spirit and focus on the positive.’

Buffalo even received a note of thanks from New York’s Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, for its efforts in preserving goodwill within the international maritime community.

This outreach had an indelible and positive effect on Buffalo personnel as they went ‘above and beyond’ to welcome foreign sailors to the shores of Houston. Ship captains quickly related to their peers that the spirit of friendship was alive and well in Texas ports. Studdert was proud of the positive impact his World Peace Plaques had on the maritime community and treasures the nearly 3,000 pictures his crews took of the presentation of these keepsakes to fellow mariners.

Ultimately, Studdert realises none of this would have been possible without the loyalty and support of the employees that drive the Buffalo engine. To that end,

Pat is extremely progressive in rewarding Buffalo crews with no-spill, safety and end-of-year bonuses. In an effort to discourage smoking, vessels without any smokers receive additional daily compensation. He has even earmarked the gross proceeds of one of his tank barges (the Buffalo 401K) to be distributed amongst the crews at an annual event. Nonetheless, Pat understands that the employer-employee bond is not cemented by money alone. Therefore, he constantly strives to foster an ethos of teamwork that instills a commitment to excellence in all endeavours.

This was recently driven home when Pat presented personalised Buffalo Marine footballs to every employee. These footballs were engraved with the phrase ‘Carry the Ball for Buffalo Marine’. When he handed out these footballs to his team of mariners, he exhorted them to treat every bunker job, to handle every barge movement and to oversee each evolution as a critical play in a hard-fought football game. As he shook the hands of seasoned captains and patted the younger deckhands on their backs, he knew that every ounce of energy had to be devoted to ensuring the days of cursing and broken beer bottles would never return to the bunker business.


Operational Issues

INTERTANKO members now have access to near real-time information about the terminals

their ships plan to visit. Behind this signif icant development is the switching of the Association’s Terminal Vetting Database (TVD) to be hosted on the Q88.com website.

This is seen as a major step in improving tanker safety and security. Oil companies exercise due diligence in selecting well-maintained and well-managed vessels for charter. The TVD helps INTERTANKO’s members exercise due diligence with regard to safety and environmental protection as they strive for continuous improvement and for the Poseidon Challenge aims of zero fatalities, zero detentions and zero pollution.

You may have the best tanker in the world, operated by the very best seafarers, but if you put this ship into a badly configured and poorly operated terminal, the risk of an accident or incident increases dramatically. With the TVD on Q88.com, operators and ships can now do more to gauge those risks and to ensure that feedback is available about terminal conditions.

In the first 24 hours after the announce-ment to members, associate members and the public, INTERTANKO received over 300 requests to access the new TVD and more requests are constantly coming in.

How does INTERTANKO’s TVD work? It now works in a similar way to the systems operated by the Ship Inspection Report (SIRE) database operated by the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) and the Chemical Distribution Institute (CDI). Any low scoring comments on a particular terminal are forwarded by INTERTANKO to the terminal in question (withholding details of ship and owner), requesting comment from the terminal on root cause analysis and successful implementation of corrective actions and close-out. The terminal’s comments will be entered into the database alongside the original report; or if no comments are received by the terminal after 30 days, then that will also be recorded.

Ref lecting numerous expressions of concern from members over reports that

the water depth at some terminals is less than shown on the charts, the TVD now includes new questions on the accuracy of water depth at the berth.

INTERTANKO Marine Director, Capt. Howard Snaith, commented: ‘We very much hope that such feedback will be received positively by terminals, will encourage continuous improvement and will enhance safety at terminals, which are the critical point in the ship/shore interface.’

Having completed the test phase of a terminal vetting pilot project, INTERTANKO formally adopted the TVD in 2004, after a small group of members, led by Capt. John Hill of Heidenreich Marine, created a database which could accommodate reports on tanker terminals world-wide for the benefit of INTERTANKO members and associate members.

‘Throughout the process of conceiving, implementing and upgrading the TVD, we have not wavered from our original course, which was to improve safety on ships through the use of a simple and direct system,’ said Capt. John Hill, Operations Control Director for Heidmar. ‘Upgrading the TVD and including it in the Q88 system serves both objectives. It is with great pride that we say: “We are working for our shipmates at sea”.’

The purpose of the TVD is to take information about terminal and berth conditions at tanker ports around the world and make it available to INTERTANKO’s members and associate members in a compact one-page format, through a very simple web-based database, that is

Capt. Howard Snaith, INTERTANKO’s Marine

Director, talks to Bunkerspot about the

significance of the hosting of the Terminal

Vetting Database on the Q88.com website

‘You may have the best tanker in the world,

operated by the very best seafarers, but if you put

this ship into a badly configured and poorly

operated terminal, the risk of an accident or incident increases dramatically’

Capt. Howard Snaith is Head of the Marine, Chemical, Ports, Terminals and Environmental divisions at the independent tanker owners association, INTERTANKO.

The Q88.com web site was launched in June 2001. The website’s primary function is to automate the completion of charterer and terminal questionnaires. There are currently 580 questionnaires available, which are being used by over 340 tanker owners having an aggregate fleet of over 4,300 vessels. Other industry-related companies are also using the service to access the vessel particular details posted on the website. Q88.com also offers additional online tools for owners, charterers, brokers and agents.

Contact: Capt. Howard SnaithINTERTANKOTel: +44 20 7977 7010 Fax: +44 20 7977 7011Web: www.intertanko.com

Operational Issues

available to the ship masters as well as shore offices.

This system does not put an approved or non-approved stamp on individual terminals. It is a simple fact-finding and fact-sharing exercise which will benefit operational safety and environmental protection at the critical phase of the ship/shore interface, and will promote continuous improvement.

The TVD also encourages terminal operators to continue to achieve high standards of operation and continuous improvement through the constructive comments received through the TVD report and through root cause analysis and corrective action.

Fritz Heidenreich, Manager of Q88.com, commented: ‘We are happy to assist INTERTANKO by hosting the TVD.

Since a majority of the INTERTANKO members are also subscribing to our vetting questionnaire service, it makes sense to have the TVD accessible from the same website. We have upgraded the TVD to include new internet technology which will make the system easier to use than before.’

INTERTANKO has worked closely with Q88.com to ensure that the upgrade of its TVD meets members’ demands. This is not a commercial enterprise. It is supplied at no charge to the Association’s members and associated members as a direct INTERTANKO service whose primary purpose is to enhance safety and environmental protection through transparency, prompt feedback, and specif ic reaction to constructive criticism.

‘We have not wavered from our original course, which was to improve safety on ships through the use of a simple and direct system’


Operational Issues

One of the main issues facing the shipping industry today is the shortage of suitably

qualif ied crew and a critical shortage of officers.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) and many of the affected national administrations around the world are investing significant time and effort in an attempt to reverse this trend, but the reality is that a life at sea no longer appeals to our aff luent and free younger generation. High employment, salaries and freedom are hard to counter in the face of increasing workloads, personal liabilities, punishing schedules with little shore time and severe security regimes that treat seafarers as terrorists. Crewing has moved East and we are in a sellers’ market where seafarers are transient, essentially moving to the highest bidder, resulting in little or no commitment to the corporate employer.

And indeed it is this commitment conundrum that sits uncomfortably with the importance of shipping to global trade and the impact of increasing safety, security and environmental regulation and legislation. To solve this problem, the shipping industry is looking to technological solutions to bring the ship into the office and never before has the mantra of ‘what gets monitored gets managed’ been so true.

One of the main issues making life harder for both shore-based f leet managers and ships’ masters is the amount of legislation that they have to conform to on a daily, and sometimes even hourly, basis. Be this the type of fuel being used, where to discharge bunkers, notice of arrival requirements and an almost continual feed of forms that need to be completed and emailed before a ship can enter or leave a port. All these demands must be satisfied otherwise, as we are all too aware in the case of the Oily Water Record Book, in the ship master’s case, this could mean prison.

Owners now hold their f leet managers responsible for ensuring that their vessels comply with every piece of legislation. The competitive nature of third party ship management ensures that owners can be more demanding and expect more in return for their dollars, but this responsibility falls equally heavily on in-house ship

management departments.Pole Star Space Applications has

always been very aware of the legislative changes in shipping and its Business Development Director, Julian Longson, has been a well known face at IMO meetings over the nine years that the company has been in operation. Pole Star started out simply tracking ships via the Inmarsat C terminals, fitted under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) requirements on board vessels over 300 gross registered tonnes (grt), and then displaying the positional information on its Purplefinder web-based interface.

For the more forward-thinking f leet managers who adopted the early Purplefinder system, it became a necessity that it should offer them much more than just a position on a map and so came the introduction of weather information, high quality marine charts supplied by C-Map followed by messaging capabilities via Inmarsat C and other features. To our clients, a constant benefit was the knowledge that at any time of day or night they could see exactly where their f leet was in real time. With increased commercial pressures and security threats to ship and crew, knowing a ship’s exact location is an essential requirement for any responsible f leet manager.

Recently, Pole Star announced a new product, Fleet Manager, which provides an effective way of monitoring and managing f leets in real time. The product has been designed for f leet operators of all types including owners, charterers, liner trade management, ship managers, pool operators and other commercial managers. The system offers accurate reporting of the whole f leet’s position and status, including actual speed, average speed, heading, latitude and longitude, nearest port, geo-zoning, grouping, weather forecasting and voyage history information.

The importance of being able to view, download and save voyage history data has increased, especially when the location of a vessel has been called to question, as in legal disputes between owners and charter parties. However, with the recent introduction of several MARPOL regulations, ‘geo-

David Plumer unveils some of the new

capabilities on offer from Pole Star’s Fleet Manager

product

David Plumer is the CEO of Pole Star Space Applications, which has developed a range of tracking, security and asset management systems for marine, aeronautical and land applications.

Contact:David PlumerPole StarTel: +44 20 7313 7402Fax: +44 20 7313 7401Web: www.polestarglobal.com


Operational Issues

‘Almost any sensitive or legislated activity can now be remotely monitored, and in some cases controlled, by the shore-based fleet

manager’

verification’ has never been so important i.e. the linkage between a measured equipment function or environmental parameter and the actual position of a ship and the specific time – think ballast water exchange and treatment, nitrous oxide (NOx) and sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions and/or scrubber functioning, bunker sulphur levels and tank monitoring, overboard discharge and so forth. Managers can use the historical position reports, coupled with their monitored information to prove (or otherwise) that they were not in breach of regulations.

Pole Star is now taking this remote equipment monitoring capability a step further and working with other companies, including Martek Marine, Oceansaver, RCM Marine and Rivertrace Engineering, to integrate these specialist providers’ own onboard monitoring systems with Pole Star’s remote reporting capability. This means that almost any sensitive or legislated activity can now be remotely monitored, and in some cases controlled,

by the shore-based f leet manager.The geo-zoning feature that Pole Star

has introduced to the Fleet Management system was developed for its customers mainly in response to their concerns over new legislation. Using this capability, managers can monitor when their ships are sailing into restricted areas including, for example, Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs), and heightened security zones. With frequent position reporting, this feature will automatically notify the manager when any vessel in the f leet enters or leaves such a zone.

Points of interest is a user customisable feature that can be used to provide key operational information to any user that f leet manager has given access to the system. Typical uses are to provide port information such as draught, berths, facilities available and agent contact details.

Pole Star has introduced a Web View feature in Fleet Manager. This serves as a tool for commercial managers to allow


Operational Issues

constant access to real time feedback on a vessel’s voyage to their shippers, consignors and their customers in turn. Cruise lines can use the facility to allow relatives of their passengers to follow progress of the f leet and to show the history of previous voyages. It is simple to set up: they paste the Web View address into their own website or on their intranet. Web View can be displayed in conjunction with three dimensional (3D) Earth programmes such as Google Earth.

The ability to display a ship’s position on a 3D representation of the earth may seem trivial to those of you who have a full understanding of marine charts. However, let us not forget that there are many companies out there, for example large organisations responsible for transporting billions of barrels of oil and operating oil and gas rigs, where company directors and executives have never been on a ship, let alone have an understanding of marine charts. Pole Star was approached by one such company which explained that should it face an emergency, marine charts were no use to its directors. They needed to be able to understand exactly where a disaster was in relation to land and gauge the effect based on this knowledge.

This is just the beginning for Pole Star’s Fleet Manager. There are plans to develop

many versions of this product tailored to the needs of the various different types of f leet operators and managers. The requirements of liquefied natural gas (LNG) carrier operators are totally different to those of the cruise companies, tanker pool operators, or container liners, and Pole Star is planning to have products to fulfil the needs of every sector of shipping. Using data libraries is one way to do this. For example, detailed port information relevant to each market is available from Pole Star and an LNG tanker operator can simply subscribe to the LNG data library and the information will be available on screen to all the users in that customers’ account. For a manager of a mixed f leet, this means they will have the potential to separate their f leet into different groups and make available the relevant zones, data library and points of interest relevant to each group within the f leet.

Voyage monitoring will be introduced later this year, which will allow commercial f leet managers and charterers to input a detailed voyage plan for each of their vessels, then to monitor the performance of their f leet in relation to the voyage plan. It will feature automated warnings which will alert the f leet manager when a vessel is behind schedule, off-course or below or above the expected voyage speed.

Soon to come are: a Voyage Planning module which will enable the f leet manager to select a voyage from a library of standard voyages derived from distance table sources and planned for next year; and a Post-voyage Analysis module which will allow the f leet manager to replay the progress of a voyage with overlays of observed weather.

Anybody working in maritime communications must also be aware of the increasing push of broadband at sea. This potentially opens up a totally different market to Pole Star where, up until now, its users have been shore-based. With broadband onboard we expect to develop Fleet Manager into a tool that is used onboard the f leet as well as to monitor the f leet.

The whole ethos behind the f leet and vessel management systems that Pole Star is developing is to make the life of those on shore and at sea, easier. The rules and regulations that legislators have imposed are, in theory at least, there to protect all of us, but the danger of over-worked seafarers is obvious: mistakes. Mistakes in shipping are costly and dangerous. Not only this, but the constant requirement to complete paperwork does not help to encourage young people to enter our world and above all, what shipping needs now is enthusiastic new blood.


Technical Issues

Hull condition is playing an increasingly important role in the quest for fuel

conservation because of substantial rises in bunker costs. The advent of new environmentally-friendly hull coating systems is also significant and these are also being investigated for their impact on fuel conservation.

Once the owner/operator takes possession of a vessel, the ship in operation will inevitably lose propulsion efficiency over time due to marine fouling of the hull and propeller. The measurements of the effects of marine growth on the hull are, however, difficult to interpret due to the variables of wind, waves, sea current, and draft/trim quality as well as seawater temperature and salinity.

Vessel operators employ routine methods of evaluating hull condition such as the scrutiny of noon-position reports. However, these techniques do not provide a tangible metric to enable fuel losses attributable to fouling (or corresponding speed losses) to be seen directly.

One company, Propulsion Dynamics, based in Long Beach, California, has developed a turnkey hull performance monitoring service known as CASPER (Computerized Analysis of Ship PERformance). Rather than providing software or equipment for on-board use, the company receives vessel performance data back from the ship and compares this with information about speed and fuel consumption which was gathered during

its trial trip. The establishment of sea trial performance criteria (when the vessel was operating with its cleanest, smoothest hull) creates a true benchmark for the current condition of hull and propeller when in service.

The data collected is corrected to account for the prevailing conditions of wind, waves, sea current, draft/trim and fuel oil quality. Resistance due to wave factors is also corrected in order to isolate performance penalties due to fouling of the entire underwater surface area alone.

Figure 1 shows a sample of the findings for ships taking part in the CASPER programme, where hull condition is described in such a way that the cost-benefits of hull coating systems and in-water service can be predicted with greater accuracy.

A breakdown of the table shows that the vessel type is stated in column 1, while the column 2 shows the fuel consumption achieved on the trial trip. Column 3, ‘Hull/Propeller Condition at present’, indicates the added resistance of the vessel due to fouling. This is a non-dimensional number which describes the condition of

Bunkerspot talks to Daniel Kane, VP of Propulsion

Dynamics, about the role of hull performance monitoring in achieving

fuel conservation

‘What is new is establishing optimal intervals for hull and propeller cleanings’

Daniel Kane is Vice President of Propulsion Dynamics. Propulsion Dynamics provides analytical performance analysis to help shipowners optimise vessel performance and reduce fuel consumption.

Contact:Daniel Kane Propulsion Dynamics Tel: +1 562 495 9027 Fax: +1 562 684 0808Email: dkane@propulsiondynamics.

comWeb: www.propulsiondynamics.

com

FIGURE 1 – Hull Resistance – A Fuel Efficiency Indicator

Type of Ship Tonnes of fuel per day consumed on trial trip (fully loaded)

Hull / Propeller Condition at present (added resistance)

Tonnes of fuel per day consumed today due to fouling (fully loaded)

Tonnes of fuel per day to save now by cleaning of hull and propeller (fully loaded)

VLCC ‘A’ 90 mt 23% 107 mt 11 mt per day

VLCC ‘B’ 90 mt 21% 105 mt 8 mt per day

Containership ‘A’ 150 mt 30% 188 mt 12.5 mt per day

Containership ‘B’ 110 mt 36% 147 mt 11 mt per day

Key: mt = metric tonnes

[*Fuel savings from hull and propeller cleanings vary according to vessel type and condition of the hull at most recent out-docking as well as time out of dock and loading conditions and are not necessarily proportional to the increase in resistance.]


Technical Issues

the hull and propeller and is independent of factors of speed, weather and draft. The added resistance can be translated into a specific increase in fuel consumption or a specific decrease in service speed. This is important because a vessel may be exhibiting slower speed in terms of ‘voyage days lost’ but there may be no change in fuel consumption; there is still, however, an inherent ‘loss’.

Column 4 shows the resulting increase in fuel consumption of the vessel, assuming that all factors are the same as on the trial trip i.e. the vessel sought to attain the same speed with a fully laden condition, and that all other weather conditions were also the same. Finally, Column 5 indicates the fuel savings that would be attainable (as a result of hull and propeller cleaning), again assuming that load and speed conditions are the same.

Fuel savings can also be attained from propeller polishing alone. For example, for the vessels shown in Figure 1, propeller polishing alone could save up to 40% of the figures shown in column 5. Daniel Kane, Vice President of Propulsion Dynamics, acknowledges that many shipowners do not undertake propeller polishing or hull cleaning because they can’t see any change in fuel use, but he notes that this is a skewed viewpoint ‘because the scatter in noon position reports can make it difficult to see any significant changes in performance’.

Figure 2 shows a f leet overview for seven ships, where the variables of wind,

waves, sea current, draft/trim, etc, have been fully corrected, and the increases in fuel use can be derived from the plots over time. The starting point for the line is indicative of the efficiency of the treatment in drydock, the slopes of the lines are indicative of the hull condition, and the steep drops in resistance for some ships are indicative of instances of hull and/or propeller maintenance.

Daniel Kane draws attention to the fact that reports on hull condition bring all the parties to the table, with the result that the drydock manager can better assess the quality of the treatment of the hull in drydock, and the chartering department can see the actual obtainable speed and fuel consumption. Furthermore, the vessel performance team can track subtle changes in ship performance and the fuel conservation coordinator can obtain a f leet overview of excess fuel consumption and work with the technical department to minimise bunker consumption, where practical and under the guidance of the coating suppliers and contractors.

While the issues of marine fouling and hull and propeller maintenance are not new, Kane believes that CASPER does take monitoring to the next level: ‘What is new is establishing optimal intervals for hull and propeller cleanings in order to minimise bunker consumption, reduce greenhouses gases and track changes in ship resistance in order to compare the fouling factor (even slime) on a more precise ship-to-ship basis.’

‘Reports on hull conditions bring all the parties to the

table’

FIGURE 2


Environmental Issues

When Rudolf Diesel unveiled his ‘f lexible fuel engine’ in 1900, it ran on biodiesel –

peanut oil in fact. Diesel engines continued to use biodiesel for at least another 15 years until petroleum companies discovered how to refine a cheaper product from oil that would suit the diesel engine. Today, advances in technology combined with the high price of oil have once again made biodiesel an economically viable option for the transport industry.

An indication of the potential biofuels have to replace petroleum products came in June 2007 when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) warned that it was considering cutting its investment in new oil production in response to moves by the developed world to produce more biofuel. Indeed, if biofuel production did increase enough to provide an alternative fuel to rival petroleum products, it would not only provide significant environmental benefits, but would inevitably reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels. So far, biofuel production has been focused on the automotive sector. But, despite a surprising lack of discussion on the subject within the industry, biodiesel would offer many benefits as an alternative fuel for shipping – from both an operational and environmental perspective.

Emissions challengeShipping has come under increasing pressure to limit emissions of sulphur oxide (SOx), nitrous oxide (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate matter (PM). Aside from biodiesel, there are a number of alternative fuels – solar power, hydrogen fuel cells and liquefied natural gas (LNG) – that would, in theory, reduce these emissions on the open seas. But so far they have not been developed to a point where they could realistically be used to fuel large-scale shipping. Although solar power would provide a perfect renewable source of energy, it has so far only been used to power small vessels. Furthermore, the largest fuel cell applications cannot currently exceed 2 megawatts electrical (MWe) power output. LNG is used for a handful of large vessels, but there are storage issues that require

these ships to refuel regularly. Neither hydrogen power nor LNG are, on their own, renewable sources of energy – energy is required to separate hydrogen from water, while LNG is a fossil fuel of finite supply. The other problem with all these technologies is the ‘chicken and egg’ issue. No one will use the technologies until there is the infrastructure to support them, and the infrastructure is unlikely to come about until there is sufficient demand. A switch to an alternative fuel would have to be both practical and affordable.

Biodiesel overcomes all of these problems. Firstly, any engine that can use petroleum diesel can also run on biodiesel with little or no modifications. This goes a long way to solving the ‘chicken and egg’ issue.

Secondly, biodiesel provides nearly the same power output as petroleum diesel – having a slightly lower calorific value, but being naturally oxygenated – thus allowing a fuller combustion.

Finally, biodiesel is a renewable source of energy. There is no real limit to how much biodiesel could be produced. Although common forms of biodiesel feedstocks such as rapeseed and soya beans take up large amounts of land that could be used for food crops, there has recently been a breakthrough in producing biodiesel from second-generation feedstocks that use a fraction of the land required for f irst-generation crops.

Algae breakthroughMost notably, there have been break-throughs in the development of algae-based photo-bioreactors. The technology uses strains of algae that yield many times more oil than first generation feedstocks. The algae are contained in glass tubes, as opposed to ponds, and CO2 is fed though the tubes facilitating the growth of the algae. The majority of the CO2 that is fed into the photo-bioreactors is absorbed, which means that CO2 emissions from heavy industry can be directly absorbed and used to produce biodiesel.

The Japanese, French and German governments have been investing in this method of production. Chevron Technology Ventures has recently announced a joint venture with the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory

David Waterman looks at the potential of biodiesel as an alternative fuel for

the shipping industry



(NREL) to look into the potential of algae-based biodiesel. Bunkerspot has also been in contact with scientists from the UK who have claimed to have developed a device that can capture CO2 emissions directly from vehicles so that they can be transported to algae photo-bioreactors.

Another second generation feedstock is the jatropha plant, which can grow almost anywhere, and is currently being promoted by countries such as India to produce biodiesel on allocated wasteland. The emergence of these new feedstocks means that that there is now far more potential for biodiesel to compete with petroleum products on availability and price.

A switch to biodiesel would tackle emissions from any industry that uses petroleum products, but would particularly benefit shipping. This is because biodiesel is virtually free of sulphates, and so goes much further than the MARPOL Annex VI regulations on SOx emissions demand. Also, when compared to petroleum diesel, average biodiesel emissions are reduced by 67% in total unburned hydrocarbons, 48% in carbon monoxide and 47% in particulate matter. The only emission that increases in these terms is NOx – by about 10%. This is due to the more complete combustion of biodiesel – but this also contributes towards the reduction of other emissions such as PM. Many would argue that a slight increase in NOx is worth the significant reduction in other greenhouse gasses. With the emergence of Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) and various ports attempting to impose their own restrictions on sulphur emissions, SOx has so far been a bigger issue than NOx in the world of shipping. In any case, it is likely that ship engines could be modified to counter the NOx increase.

Carbon neutralIn theory at least, the process of producing biodiesel is ‘carbon neutral’: during production, the feedstock absorbs the same amount of CO2 that the fuel will emit when combusted. Of course, energy is used to grow the feedstocks, and to extract and refine the biofuel, so currently the process is not completely carbon neutral. Even so, a US Department of Energy (DOE) study showed that the production and use of biodiesel, compared to petroleum diesel,

resulted in a 78.5% reduction in CO2 emissions. If all of the energy needed for the production of biofuels was derived from another renewable source of energy, the process would result in a 100% reduction in CO2 emissions.

There are further benef its in using biodiesel on ships. Biodiesel is non-toxic and degrades much faster than petroleum diesel. Consequently, a biodiesel fuel-spill would not cause serious ecological damage. Biodiesel has a higher f lash point than petroleum diesel (at least 93º Centigrade), so it is also safer to store.

Biodiesel has a better lubricity than petroleum diesel. It can also be blended with petroleum diesel in any proportions, producing different properties in the end product. According to the US National

Biodiesel Board (NBB), even biodiesel blended at a 20% rate with petroleum diesel has a lower wear-scar than traditional fuel. There would also be benefits in using biodiesel as a cutter stock for bunker fuel, such as an overall reduction in sulphur content.

Furthermore, according to fuel blending specialist CBI Engineering, any ship engine that runs on fuel oil can use unrefined biodiesel (or vegetable oil). In order for biodiesel to work in normal diesel engines, it has to go through a process –‘transesterification’ – which removes the glycerine content, reducing the viscosity of the oil. This process significantly increases the production costs of biodiesel. However, fuel oil engines heat the fuel before it is combusted. This decreases the viscosity, so using the cheaper, unrefined biodiesel would not be a problem. Consequently, vessels that run on fuel oil (such as container ships) may be in a better position to use biodiesel than any other mode of transport.

Barriers to entryThere are, however, potential barriers to overcome if biodiesel is to be used for international shipping. The most pressing appears to be the faster degradation rate of biodiesel. According to the NBB, the current industry recommendation is that biodiesel should be used within six months, or re-analysed after that time, to ensure that the fuel meets the desired quality. While this is a much longer period than any ship would need to keep fuel in its tanks, the six-month limit may cause problems for bunker suppliers.

There are also issues with the higher acidity of biodiesel, which may cause corrosion in certain components of the engine.

Another area to look at is the higher pour point of biodiesel, which may become a problem in colder climates. But this appears to be a minor problem as engines that run on fuel oil heat the fuel before it is combusted.

The more obvious barriers are the production levels and cost of biodiesel. At present, for the purposes of international shipping, biodiesel is slightly more expensive than its petroleum counterparts – marine diesel oil (MDO) and marine gasoil (MGO). As most international sales of fuel are tax-exempt, biodiesel would not benefit from the reduction of fuel duty that it currently has in some domestic markets.

Although rising oil prices have narrowed the gap between the price of biodiesel and conventional diesel, the production costs of biodiesel would have to come down quite a long way before it would become an attractive alternative for large-scale shipping.

If it emerges that ships with fuel oil engines can use unrefined biodiesel without any major problems, the cost of switching for these vessels would be much more realistic, but even so, the price of raw vegetable oil is still above that of fuel oil.

There is also the question of how OPEC would react if biodiesel were to get a strong foothold in the world economy. Rather than the cartel curbing production – as it has threatened – a more logical reaction would be a dramatic surge in production in order to bring down the price of petroleum products and stif le any demand for biofuel.

‘Advances in technology combined with the high price of oil have once

again made biodiesel an economically viable option for the transport industry’



Even if biodiesel production continues to be more costly than oil production, western governments are likely to continue investment for reasons of energy security, not to mention the environmental benefits. The US wants to cut its petroleum use by 20% by 2015, and currently subsidises the production of biodiesel. California and Minnesota are proposing plans that would require vehicles to fill up with 20% biodiesel blends by 2015. In Europe, petroleum diesel can already be (and is) blended with up to 5% biodiesel without compromising vehicle warranties, and there is a reduction in duty for biodiesel in European Union (EU) countries such as the UK. The EU’s commitment to achieve a reduction in CO2 emissions by 8% between 2008 and 2012 has resulted in the setting of a target of 5.75% biofuels of all transportation fuel by December 2010. This will make the EU the largest market for biofuels in the world. In the Asia-Pacific region, countries such as New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand and South Korea have all introduced blending mandates. According to consultants Frost & Sullivan, consumption in this region is likely to reach 1.2 million metric tonnes (mt) this year, with China, Australia, Indonesia and the Philippines representing the largest markets.

While the emphasis is likely to continue

to be on the automotive sector in the short-term, the demand for biodiesel will certainly increase. This should attract more investment into biofuels production, leading to better feedstocks, more advanced production techniques and greater economies of scale. If this happens, it is far more likely that biodiesel will receive attention from the shipping industry as an alternative fuel.

Biodiesel suppliersThere are already a handful of suppliers selling biodiesel to the marine sector, but these tend to be for the purposes of private vessels or cruise ships that use distillates rather than fuel oil. In 2007, Royal Caribbean International was supplying cruise ships with palm-based biodiesel in the Port of Vancouver, Canada. Transmontaigne supplies biodiesel to ships on the US Gulf Coast and in New York Harbour via barge and ex-pipe. In November 2007, the company’s price for marine biodiesel was between $900 and $950 a tonne. In comparison, the prices of MDO in the key US ports ranged between $750 and $900.

Whether the use of biodiesel will be incorporated into large-scale shipping will depend on the industry regulators as well as engine manufacturers and shipping companies. Currently, the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO) has no specification for biodiesel, without which large-scale trading in the marine sector is unlikely to take off. Establishing a specif ication could take years. Furthermore, although ships’ engines could be modified to tackle the slight increase in NOx emissions that biodiesel produces, these new settings would have to be approved by the International Council on Combustion Engines (CIMAC). The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is currently deciding on the best course of action to take in order to limit SOx and other emissions, but the organisation says that it has not received ‘any formal submission’ on the issue of using biodiesel as an alternative fuel.

Sustainable alternativeBiodiesel could present a sustainable alternative to the petroleum products used in shipping, and tackle environmental issues at the same time. But much more discussion is needed on the subject, especially concerning the technicalities of using the product at sea. With so many governments determined to see the emergence of biofuel as an alternative energy source, it is surely a question of when – not if – biodiesel will present itself as an economically viable alternative fuel for the marine sector.

Ralph Lewis, Vice President Technical at Power Research Inc., considers how the concerns over biodiesel stability can be overcome.

A major challenge with soy and rapeseed extracted biodiesel continues to be storage stability. Experience indicates that some biodiesel fuels can significantly deteriorate in as little as 30 days. To make matters worse, most of these fuels do not respond well to conventional fuel stability treatment. In fact, many diesel fuel stability treatments can actually make the rate of biodiesel degradation dramatically increase.

Degraded biodiesel can also have a profoundly negative effect on emissions. Simply, when biodiesel degrades, certain acids form, notably carboxylic acid. The presence of this acid in any fuel – whether diesel or heavy fuel oil – results in increased smoking.

But there is hope. To date, Power

Research Inc. has successfully formulated an effective fuel stability treatment (PRI-D) for B-20 biodiesel blends (80% diesel, 20% biodiesel). Independent laboratory tests conducted by Intertek Caleb Brett and Saybolt confirm PRI-D capability to extend B-20 integrity in storage.

Under the two test methods – ASTM D2274 and Octel F21-31 – B-20 fuels treated with PRI-D have respectively shown stability improvements ranging from 33% to 50%.

In fresh B-20 biodiesel, application of PRI-D also appears to have a positive effect on emissions reductions. Field trials with PRI-D treated B-20 on a municipal f leet suggest that PRI-D does help reduce nitrous oxide (NOx) from B-20 fuels while also achieving even further reductions in particulate emissions. Yet strict laboratory engine tests conducted under the US Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) heavy-duty diesel emissions testing protocol indicate that such reduction is not yet sufficient to be equivalent to NOx emissions from conventional diesel.

Can these technical issues be resolved? Perhaps. But then the question of economic viability remains.

While biodiesel in the US has enjoyed certain niche markets, including municipal f leets, harbour cruise operators, not to mention the tour buses of certain politicians and entertainers, it remains more costly than conventional fuels in an environment where the public is already reeling from steep fuel cost increases.

As to the promise of biodiesel as a replacement for conventional bunker fuel in the world’s great maritime f leets, that is a bet best left to Las Vegas odds makers. Their revenue stream always counts on a handful of players willing to ‘pony up’ against high odds.



The environment is one of the main driving forces behind much of the new legislation in

every country. It is now the turn of the marine industry to address the problems of pollution.

As a global industry and a global problem the appropriate mechanism is that provided through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Part of the solution is the MARPOL Annex VI treaty under which the industry can hope for a settled, effective, and workable globally uniform set of regulations as a framework for ongoing improvement and change. Simply adopting a 1.5% limit in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) against a 2.6% average fuel sulphur value represents a realistic and achievable sulphur oxide (SOx) reduction of around 42%. Market-based mechanisms could hope to encourage further real reductions.

The evolution of MARPOL has been a consultative process that is inclusive of the marine industry’s input and the result is based on a consensus view of the best way forward. Consensus does not mean ‘compromise’ but that is the way some detractors have begun to describe it. Indeed, in the many studies of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), this consensus is seen as a vital ingredient for their success. However, the alternative to the treaty is unilateral legislation in which the involvement of the industry is less likely to be sought or welcomed and consensus is irrelevant. The impact on the industry is also of little real political consequence.

The IMO Secretary General’s calls for the industry to help inf luence the various treaty states to implement the necessary statutes, his warnings about unilateral legislation and his increasing urgency about implementation may indicate a deeper concern.

Is MARPOL Annex VI a pivotal event? If MARPOL is superseded by unilateral legislation, what else may drop out of the IMO’s remit and how long before the IMO is irrelevant?

The focus of this article is on how propaganda can be used to skew the public’s perception of the scale of the problem of emissions caused by shipping.

It is claimed that many decisions are made based on emotion rather than logic (except for

engineers, for some reason). It is something to do with the primitive brain stem and the fight or f light mechanism. Propaganda targets the emotions and, through public perception, can inf luence domestic politics.

The problem is that despite its global significance, in no one country is shipping sufficiently well valued for its interests to carry much weight. Unilateral legislation is inf luenced by domestic politics and they can be inf luenced by the propagandists. Propaganda is not something that has directly inf luenced the IMO processes but it could be a very powerful agent in unilateral legislation.

The tools available to the propagandist are numerous, but here we will look only at a few. The point is to raise awareness of the nature and extent of the problem.

It should be remembered in this that MARPOL is about two separate air pollution issues: greenhouse gases and their relevance to global warming, and particulates and their relevance to health issues. It is common for the ‘green’ organisations to confuse the separate issues of greenhouse gases and particulates.

First, let’s take a look at how emotive words and descriptions are used to highlight the problems of shipping emissions.

Bunker fuel is variously described as having ‘500 times more sulphur than land-based fuel’, while Friends of the Earth says bunker fuels are ‘1,000 times dirtier’ than road transport fuels, ‘an asphalt-like gunk’. Elsewhere: ‘Bunker fuel has sulphur content of up to 27,000 parts per million (ppm), compared to 15 ppm in diesel burned by cars and trucks in the United States’. One writer then says that ultra-low sulphur diesel ‘results in lower emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx), an ingredient of smog, and particulates, which are known to cause cancer’. He admits that there is a price to pay: ‘Maybe 50 cents on your next $1,000 TV set, or a nickel on your next pair of jeans’.

We can all think of better and fairer ways to describe fuels, and we can all recognise where the ‘truth’ turns into fiction, but you would have a hard time to find the truth out there in the world the public sees.

All of these comments seem to imply that clean fuels mean less greenhouse gases. Naturally, the results of the American Petroleum Institute (API) sponsored

Jon Watson of Razaghi Meyer International considers how the

propaganda machine may be undermining the aims

of MARPOL

Contact:Jon WatsonRazaghi Meyer InternationalTel: +44 1903 884 472Fax: +44 7092 809 181Email: [email protected]: www.viscoanalyser.com


study, which says that switching to distillates will increase CO2 emissions anywhere from 1% to 17% compared with residual fuel, are ignored. Others claim that there are sufficient distillates available. The industry says not.

One way to use the ‘truth’ to tell a lie is to find the most damaging way to present the data; you don’t need to falsify any data to do this. One approach is to use ‘rankings’.

Environmental advocacy group Oceana says that shipping pumps as much CO2 into the air as all the cars used in the United States put together. In fact, ‘only six countries crank out more CO2 than the global shipping f leet’.

This may be true, but how many readers bother to look objectively at the data, the presentation or the conclusions?

According to NationMaster, the top six CO2 emitters are the US, China, Russia,

Japan, India and Germany. The 7th is the UK so shipping must be presumed to emit between 558,225 and 837,425 metric tonnes (mt).

But the US emits, in total, 5,762,050 mt so shipping actually emits one twelfth the amount of CO2 by the US, but actually only about 3.05% of the world total.

By treating shipping as a country equivalent and reporting a ranking is more damaging than reporting proportions. Of course, maybe the shipping emissions ought to be shared out among the different counties on a pro rata-basis.

The Science Daily website (www.sciencedaily.com) presents Carnegie Mellon University researchers Corbett and Fischbeck as the source for this example of ranking:

‘World-wide ship nitrogen emissions are equal to nearly half of the total emissions from the United States, 42% of nitrogen emissions

from North America, 74% of emissions from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Europe and 190% of those from Germany. They are equal to 100% of nitrogen emissions from US mobile sources and 87% of nitrogen emissions from US stationary sources.’

They add that: ‘Ship sulphur emissions equal 43% of total sulphur emissions from the United States, 35% of sulphur emissions from North America, 53% of emissions from OECD Europe and 178% of those from Germany’.

Now even if the actual data is correct, it is most damaging when presented in this way and tends to creep through into other reports. Notice a possible link between this account and domestic politics.

In Lessons from the Cosco Busan Oil Spill, Mark Leno, Member, California State Assembly, is reported to have said:



‘Other distillate fuels are cleaner and readily available and environmental groups have been pushing for a ban on bunker fuel for nearly ten years.’

Well, what do we expect from pressure groups and politicians; at least scientists are impartial and present the facts. Or do they?

Next is a lesson in getting your message across: to present it as science – but here we have some problems as lay people. The above examples were easy for anyone to pick apart with a bit of time and access to the internet. The scientific article presents a bigger challenge.

Very few scientif ic papers get much coverage in the press but ‘Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment’ by James Corbett and James Winebrake from Rochester Institute of Technology (the same Professor Corbett we encountered above) has achieved extraordinary world-wide coverage, including in the marine industry’s own press and in the daily press, but has anyone analysed it? Is anyone equipped to do so?

It spawns quotes such as ‘Ships belching toxic fumes from diesel fuel contribute to the deaths of thousands of people in Europe, Asia and the United States each year’.

One article has Corbett quoted as saying ‘The report arrives just as the IMO is beginning to debate the issue...’

How has this ‘assessment’ received so much coverage? Perhaps it is because in their ‘assessment’ the authors use the headline term ‘60,000 deaths’.

Actually, for the layman, this is about the only comprehensible statement. The best the layman can do is look at the style and language used in the report itself. What does that tell us? We need a benchmark which we can get by looking at similar reports on PM2.5 particulates and mortality rates. Take the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) sponsored ACE fact sheets for an understandable discussion of pollution (www.ace.mmu.ac.uk) and compare to the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) review of the 60,000 deaths report (www.catf.us).

Or consider the UK’s report: Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution: Effect on Mortality. A report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP).

This report is well organised, systematic and appears to have considerable clarity. The language is neutral and it quotes relative risk (RR) values throughout, as one would expect of an epidemiological study.

The declared intention of the ‘60,000 deaths’ report is to help assess the options of uniform global standards versus requirements for designated control areas and the benefits and costs of various emission-reduction strategies (e.g. fuel switching versus after treatment technologies or operational changes).

About all one can seize upon is that it says sulphur from shipping makes up 5%-8% of global atmospheric sulphur. In the UK, shipping contributes 2% to the atmospheric sulphur and 3% to NOx. It is a high population density industrialised country close to other industrialised countries and with some pretty intense shipping through the English Channel and in the North Sea. This ought to be a ‘hot-spot’ but the ‘60,000 deaths’ report’s 5%-8% SOx suggests the converse. So how do we account for these differences?

These are all necessarily epidemiological studies. Epidemiological studies are sometimes very suspect. In some cases they are the modern equivalent of examining chicken entrails. Particulates do affect health, but the problem is to isolate the effects of marine pollution and correctly weigh and attribute their role in mortality, and mortality isn’t just caused by particulates and often we are talking about mortality as a result of long or short term exposure and its effect on life expectancy. There are a lot of complications to the data, the models and the treatment that would take some skill to unravel.

Now it may be that the ‘60,000 deaths’ authors are exactly right or even that they are conservative. What they are not, apparently, is impartial.

In the end, the only way to fully evaluate the report is for it to be reviewed by other scientists. The industry may need its own scientists tasked to investigate any such papers.

The environmental propagandist groups are targeting the marine industry. Every ‘incident’ is seized on as an excuse for calls for ‘something to be done’. That ‘something’ changes week by week and what started as a call for taxation on bunker fuels quickly

exploited the INTERTANKO proposal and became a call for a ban on bunker fuels. Some characterise the debate as being between distillate fuels or scrubbing. Clearly many do not like the idea of SECAs.

Evidently the industry needs to do everything it can to make MARPOL work. One of the vulnerabilities of MARPOL, or any other legislations, is a lack of reliable and verifiable ‘observational’ data which would be of the utmost value to the industry both in helping make MARPOL a success but also in helping develop clear information on the amount of fuel used, when where and with what resultant pollution. Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS), a feature of most successful MEAs, or Continuous Emissions Reporting Systems (CERS) would seem essential and especially if Market Based Mechanisms (including Emissions Trading) are to become a reality.

But it also doesn’t need last minute dissention caused by unnecessary proposals that are contended within the industry being used as ammunition against it. The SECA approach will deliver significant reductions, it is workable. The distillates proposal is available already to all who want to use it but as a single solution. It adds to the CO

2

burden and there is not enough distillate available whereas the lessening demand for land-based heavy fuels means that supplies for the marine industry will continue to be available and for the expected expansion of shipping.

But how do these messages get across? Is it possible that the industry needs a single unified representative body that can contain the industry’s internal debates and which can represent only those options to the outside world that are collectively agreed by the industry? Does it need a single body that can tackle the wider issues and which can target propaganda? Does it need to follow the lead of the tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry in facing up to the world of domestic politics?

Whatever needs doing needs doing now; time is running out; in November’s Transport & Environment Bulletin, Mogens Peter Carl (Director General of the EC’s DG Environment Directorate) is reported as saying that the EU is within months of proposing unilateral legislation, and that its patience with the IMO process at an end.


Security Issues

Energy independence remains an illusion for the majority of nations, but as the growing economic

powers around the world experience exponential levels of dependency on imported energy supplies (particularly by sea), is the threat to these supply lines and ultimately their economies just as much of an illusion, or should we be seriously worried?

There is no doubt that maintaining and securing high levels of stability for world energy supply through global state cooperation, particularly with the emergence of growing energy consuming giants like China and India, should be a major strategy for the world’s governments.

Take China as a prime example. A country which has begun an ambitious effort to build a f leet of more than 90 supertankers to improve its control over oil imports vital to sustaining a booming economy, and also a country singled out by maritime security analysts as experiencing growing fears over potential threats to its oil deliveries due to international tension or conf lict.

By definition, the policy of maintaining some form of global security requires both the creation of deterrence initiatives aimed at those who look to disrupt this trade, and a massive push towards maritime security activity that helps to crush those seeking to create instability along various parts of the world’s energy supply chain.

But it is also the case that those looking to secure this supply chain should be realistically assessing the threat before employing legislation and offensive tactics. After all, there is no point in concentrating time and money trying to prevent security incidents that may rationally never happen. Terror tactics do tend to lead to varying levels of hysteria, but there is a justifiable basis for some of the more extreme theories if you look hard enough for them.

Think for a moment about the way our energy world is shaped and how delicate it is.

The US is the largest oil importer in the world, bringing in 13.5 million barrels a day (b/d). Oil from the Middle East accounts for 20% of those imports, and this dependence is growing.

Japan, which has very limited energy resources in comparison but has a growing demand for energy supplies, is also clearly

worried about the global issues regarding energy transportation, recently commissioning a report by their own Energy Security Group that highlighted sea lanes in general, and the Strait of Malacca in particular, as areas most vulnerable to a terrorist attack (see the article written by Securewest International’s new business development manager, Paul Singer, in the April/May 2007 issue of Cargo Security International).

The US, Japan, China and India aside, there are many other shining examples of such interdependence on the business of energy shipping. There are clear vulnerabilities, but are the threats out there real, and if so, where do they come from?

Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have repeatedly called for attacks on key Western economic targets, especially energy sources.

In today’s world the line between piracy and terrorism is less well defined and piracy certainly continues to be a major concern to the sector. The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO) reports being ‘deeply concerned over the trend of piracy in the past several years’ as it constitutes an ‘extremely grave threat to the lives of the crews and the safe operation of ships.’

According to the International Maritime Bureau’s (IMB) latest figures, 35% of piracy attacks have been against product/chemical tankers and crude tankers with an overall 38% of piracy attacks against the energy sector in general.

At the coalface, crews are certainly concerned, as highlighted in a recent survey conducted by ship officers’ union Nautilus UK, where 27% of members stated that they were ‘very concerned about the threat of piracy and terrorism’. Furthermore, 22% of respondents had been on a ship involved in a piracy incident or attempt.

Mix threat with the right pinch points and a volatile mix is created. The fertile grounds are well known by now, with the most talked-about being the Malacca Strait. IMB figures on tracked vessels give us ample background as to why this is the case. According to the IMB, nearly 65,000 ships transited the Strait in 2005, of which 35% were tankers. One quarter of the world’s annual f leet tonnage passes through here – much of it oil. 80% of the energy supplies of Japan and China alone

Stan Ayscue of Securewest International

looks at global security issues in maritime energy

transportation

Stan Ayscue is business development manager at global maritime security service provider, Securewest International.

Having previously served in the US Army and then working for US Federal Prison Industries, Stan Ayscue joined Securewest International in 2004. Based in the US, Stan is currently employed by Securewest International as business development manager and is responsible for identifying and creating solutions for the company’s clients world-wide.

Securewest International has been specialising in maritime security for 20 years, providing on-board or in-port security officers (armed or unarmed), International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) and related regulated compliance and audit programmes, as well as training for vessel, facility or company security officers, and ship security alert system (SSAS) monitoring through a 24/7/365 Maritime Assistance Centre.

Contact:Stan AyscueSecurewest InternationalTel: +1 757 461 4343Fax: +1 757 461 8666Web: www.securewest.com


Security Issues

pass through the Strait and so it represents a serious choke point.

West Africa is becoming more and more infamous too. Currently, 40% of Nigeria’s oil is exported to the US, accounting for 15% of all US oil imports, a figure set to rise to 20% by 2010. Nigerian terror group The Movement for Emancipation of the Niger-Delta (MEND) represents a formidable force and controls much of the Delta area.

Its not just about terrorists either, inter-State stability provides its fare share of problems with the majority of oil originating from the Mideast region.

One fifth of oil consumed by the world passes through the 34-mile wide Straits of Hormuz, equating to 17 million b/d of oil, and Iran has previously threatened to close off the Straits in retaliation to any strike against its nuclear programme. With over 1,000 Fast patrol boats based in and around the Straits and producing a quarter of the world’s oil, Iran is well placed to disrupt supplies and exert considerable upward pressure on the price of crude if it chooses to.

There is also a tendency to only consider large vessels as terrorist targets, just because they are big. Smaller product tankers provide just as good if not better potential targets. With a smaller crew, they are easier to take over – and with a lower freeboard they are easier to access from small craft. In terms of threat they present an equally strategic target, especially if multiple locations were selected either world-wide or by country. Any focus on key structures, ports and choke points linked with intent to detonate would have a devastating effect on an economy in a very short time.

There may already be a strong case for a shift in threat assessment when it comes to Trojan horse scenarios of huge super tankers being hijacked and taken into ports as f loating bombs.

Threat may no longer come directly from onboard vessels or in containers but from small craft or smaller hijacked vessels. Vayl Oxford, head of the US Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, said recently that there has been a shift away from port-centric attention. History dictates (USS Cole, MV Limburg) that attacks can come from the smallest of craft, and therefore there is a strong case that vessels sub 300 tonnes are the

ones to watch. Coupled with a tendency to only closely monitor the largest tankers as the biggest perceived risk, and there is a danger that the door is being left wide open. Small craft could pose the greatest risk to product tankers, coastal tankers, fuel barges and more.

The world’s economy today relies almost entirely on a ‘ just in time’ delivery principle. Threaten to detonate fuel barges in a few major ports, effectively closing them off, and it will only be a matter of time before the economy suffers, stock markets go into tail-spin and consumers start panicking.

The main area of contention regarding liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) security is the exact risk it holds. LNG is a significant growth sector with order books for LNG carriers full to overf lowing. The UK, after the North Sea heydays, became a net importer of LNG in 2005 and may rely on imports for 80% of capacity by 2015. Keeping that supply chain open is going to be vital for any economy reliant on gas.

Big or small, can you easily blow up such tankers? There is some debate when it comes to LNG and the energy shipping industry itself does have a very clean record, despite contrary perceptions in some quarters.

To date, it has been a very safe industry with an almost clean bill of health in the past 40 years. This is no accident and it is largely due to high safety standards, strict regulation and high levels of industry co-operation as regards safety issues.

The industry maintains that LNG is not explosive or highly f lammable until it regains its gaseous state. It is of course the duty of the industry to toe this line; but while elements of the argument are true the fact remains that, as with oil, LNG can catch fire at sea if a tank is ruptured. It hasn’t happened so far, but that doesn’t rule out a situation that could be manufactured to deliberately cause a tanker to catch fire and maybe explode. Either situation is a disaster.

It is thought that an LNG tank rupture would cause the material to f low out at speed and part of the liquid will then form a gas cloud. How big the cloud would be, and the direction in which it would drift, would depend on conditions at the time of the incident. If the cloud finds a source of ignition, it will cause a f lash fire burst. This could track itself back to the source – ruptured tanker –

and ignite the remaining liquid pool on site. A direct terrorist attack could cause the LNG vapour to ignite immediately.

It is not just their explosive qualities that make vessels transporting energy supplies appealing to extremist groups. The al Qaeda attack on the tanker MV Limburg off the Yemeni coast was a clear attempt to manipulate rising maritime insurance rates in order to adversely affect a country’s economy. The resulting increase in insurance rates in the wake of that attack proved to be a real turn-off for some companies. Remember too that global economic manipulation of this sort ultimately filters down to the pockets of the end user.

So there are very real threats out there, and definite ways and means that these unscrupulous elements could easily manipulate situations and locations to suit their own ends. What, then, are the answers?

The Nautilus survey on security mentioned earlier found almost two-thirds of respondents thought that increased manning would be the move most likely to improve security and reduce the risk of attack, and that a substantial number complained of failure to invest in extra manning or equipment.

But what good are more bodies onboard if they don’t know what they are doing, don’t know how to initiate best practice or use vital equipment, or simply remain complacent?

At Securewest International we suggest that companies concentrate on getting the smaller scale issues right to begin with and get themselves on the right side of compliance first.

The US Maritime Transport Security Act (MTSA) and the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code set out the minimum standards to achieve – but the aim should be to exceed the minimum. Conducting regular training, drills and rehearsals and employing technology (night vision equipment, acoustic devices and other aids) is vital.

So too are regular reviews and risk analysis of routes commonly used to transport energy products, which will ensure any preventative action or re-routing can be taken ahead of time. Sharing any intelligence with the maritime community or bodies like the IMB ensures that a bigger picture can be built and others notified of a shift in tactics or impending threat.


Events

JANUARYSINGAPORE: Bunker Quality Course 14-15 January, Orchard Parade Hotel, SingaporeThis two-day advanced course on bunker quality, jointly organised by Magenta Global and Petrospot, aims to help to reduce operational risks in the bunker business. Highlights include: latest industry developments; risks associated with low-quality bunkers and how to avoid them; new quality issues with low sulphur fuels; and the legal issues of bunkering. Contact: Helen Lee, Magenta Global Pte LtdTel: +65 6391 2549 Fax: +65 6392 3592Email: [email protected]: www.magenta-global.com.sg/bunker/

FEBRUARYUNITED KINGDOM: Managing and Avoiding Bunker Claims7-8 February, LondonOrganised by Lloyd’s List Events at the Lloyd’s Maritime Academy, London. Contact: Maritime Customer ServicesTel: +44 20 7017 5511Fax: +44 20 7017 4745Email: [email protected]: lloydsmaritimeacademy.com/lm1980

UNITED KINGDOM: The IBIA Dinner 200818 February, LondonThe 14th annual International Bunker Industry Dinner takes place at the Hilton Hotel on Park Lane.Contact: Anne ChambersTel: +44 2380 226 555Fax: +44 2380 221 777Email: [email protected]: www.ibia.net

MARCHGREECE: The Piraeus Bunker Course 5-6 March, PiraeusTaking place at the Piraeus Marine Club, this information-packed training course focuses on fuel standards, sampling and treatment onboard, quality and quantity, credit analysis, commercial, legal and operational issues. The course provides a practical and ‘hands-on’ approach that encourages delegate participation and the sharing of individual experiences. Delegates will also witness a live bunkering operation.

The course is organised by Petrospot Ltd and is led by Chris Fisher, Managing Director of Bunker Claims International. Contact: Luke Hallam EvansTel: +44 1295 814455Fax: +44 1295 814466Email: [email protected]: www.petrospot.com/events/piraeus

APRILNETHERLANDS: Bunker Experience14-17 April, Vlaardingen, RotterdamOrganised by Vergo Consultancy at the Delta Hotel, Vlaardingen, this hands-on training course is limited to 18 delegates.Contact: Goris VermeulenTel: +32 484 168780Fax: +31 847 474573Email: [email protected]: www.bunkerexperience.com

MAYUNITED KINGDOM: The Oxford Bunker Course 12-16 May, OxfordThis highly-popular five-day intensive residential course covers technical, operational, commercial, financial and legal aspects of bunkering. Detailed case studies, demonstrations, lectures, practical exercises and discussion groups, plus comprehensive course literature, provide a thorough grounding in the industry. This course is also celebrated for its exceptional networking experiences.Contact: Luke Hallam EvansTel: +44 1295 814455Fax: +44 1295 814466Email: [email protected]: www.petrospot.com/events/oxford

UNITED STATES: Maritime Week Americas 2008 19-23 May, South Beach, Miami, FloridaThe inaugural Maritime Week Americas will feature a range of seminars, courses, and conferences, split into specialised streams covering bunkering operations, environmental, legal, commercial issues and maritime and port security. A substantial exhibition, port visits, and a spectacular networking programme offer unique opportunities to meet the experts and to do business. Key seminars include the Bunker Arbitration Experience (legal stream), Emissions from Ships: Dealing with a New Environment (environmental stream), and the Bunker Credit Risk Analysis Course (commercial stream). A port and maritime

security stream is also included, focused on the cruise industry and on the petroleum supply infrastructure, storage, barging and shipping.Contact: Luke Hallam EvansTel: +44 1295 814455Fax: +44 1295 814466Email: [email protected]: www.petrospot.com/events/maritime

SEPTEMBERUNITED KINGDOM: The Oxford Bunker Course 8-12 September, OxfordA five-day intensive residential course covering technical, operational, commercial, financial and legal aspects of bunkering. Detailed case studies, demonstrations, lectures, practical exercises and discussion groups, plus comprehensive course literature, provide a thorough grounding in the industry. This course is celebrated for its exceptional networking experiences, including tours of Oxford University, course dinners, and it attracts students from all over the world. Contact: Luke Hallam EvansTel: +44 1295 814455Fax: +44 1295 814466Email: [email protected]: www.petrospot.com/events/oxford

OCTOBERSINGAPORE: SIBCON 200815-17 October. Venue, programme, organiser and contact details to be finalised.

NOVEMBERSOUTH AFRICA: The IBIA Annual Convention 200824-27 November, Cape TownNow in its fifth year, the IBIA Annual Convention takes place at the Westin Grand Cape Town Arabella Quays Hotel. Comprising one- and two-day training courses, an exhibition, and an issue-led conference designed to spark discussion and debate, this is the only forum where your Association invites you to have your say. Organised by Petrospot on behalf of IBIA, this event will follow on from the success of IBIA’s earlier Conventions in Buenos Aires, Hong Kong, Monaco and Montreal, and will include spectacular networking opportunities. Contact: Luke Hallam EvansTel: +44 1295 814455Fax: +44 1295 814466Email: [email protected] Web: www.petrospot.com/events/

To list details of bunker related events contact:Tel: +44 1295 814455 Fax: +44 1295 814466

Email: [email protected]

EuropeRichard Warwick, formerly of Texaco, Tramp Oil and World Fuel Services, and Tim Troy, formerly of Galbraith’s, Tramp Oil and World Fuel Services, have formed a new bunker trading company, Artico Energy Limited in London. Artico is majority owned by Equus Investments Limited and operates from 1st Floor, 3 More London Riverside, London SE21 2RE, England. Tel +44 20 3283 4140; Fax +44 20 3283 4001.

Martin Lucas has been appointed Managing Director of equipment specialists Kittiwake Developments Limited in Littlehampton, England. Tel: +44 1903 731470; Fax: +44 1903 731480; Email: [email protected].

Bominflot has appointed Mathias Berndt as Managing Director of OMB Ostsee Mineralöl Bunker GmbH, based in Rostock, Germany. He succeeds Axel Scheil, who has passed away. Tel: +49 381 25 22 30; Fax: +49 381 25 22 316; Mob: +49 172 38 00 368; Email: [email protected].

Jens Treckmann has joined the Supply and Risk Management Team at Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft für Mineralöle mbH & Co KG in Hamburg, Germany. Tel: +49 40 350

930; Direct Tel: +49 40 350 93 156; Email: [email protected].

Serbia-based bunker trader Dragan Petrovich has a new telephone number and email address: Tel: +381 11 3774 636; Fax: +381 11 3774 728; Email: [email protected].

Mideast and AfricaStefano Modola has resigned from his position as General Manager of Kangaroo Oil Traders (Pty) Ltd in Mombassa, Kenya.

Asia PacificThe Cockett Marine Oil group has formed a new subsidiary in South Korea. General Manager, Jungsuk Shin, has previously worked for KMBC, Tramp Oil and World Fuel Services. Gene C W Ma (Ma, Chang Won) has been appointed Assistant Manager – Trading. Contact: Cockett Marine Oil (Asia) Co. Ltd – Korea, Coal Center, 2nd Floor, 80-6 Susong-Dong, Jongno-Ku, Seoul 110-727, South Korea. Tel: +82 2 730 1894; Mob: (J S Shin) +8210 3132 6264; Mob: (Ma, Chang Won) +82 11 9108 1266; Email: [email protected].

O.W. Bunker Group has established a fully-owned subsidiary in South Korea, employing Joon Kim as Senior Trader. Contact: O.W. Bunker Korea, Room 1305, Woori Building,

10 Bongrae-dong 1(il)-ga, Jung-gu, 100-161 Seoul, South Korea. Tel: +82 70 7432 0000; Fax: +82 2777 0340; Mob: +82 1923 30780; Email: [email protected].

OceanConnect has opened an office in Japan at Vanquish, 10th Floor, 1-12-4 Ginza Chuo-Ku, Tokyo 104-0061, Japan, managed by Ryo Furuya. Tel: +81 3 5524 2971; Fax: +81 3 5524 2970; Email: [email protected].

AmericasMark VandeVoorde, formerly of Chevron, has joined the Houston office of Bominflot Bunker Oil Corp. From 1 January 2008, he will be the new President and CEO of Bominflot’s US operating companies, replacing Robert Lake who will assume a new position in organisational development and global strategy for the Bominflot Group. Tel: +1 713 952 5151; Fax: +1 713 977 1275: Email: [email protected].

Stephen T. Leonard has joined Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. as Vice President, Americas. Contact: 18001 Old Cutler Road, Suite 319, Miami, Florida 33157, United States. Tel: +1 305 233 6500; Fax: +1 305 233 2247; Email: [email protected].

Olga Traferro has left Agencia Maritima Challaco S.R.L. in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Networking

To list details of bunker related moves contact: Tel: +44 1295 814455, Fax: +44 1295 814466, Email: [email protected]

The November 2007 edition of the BunkerNews Directory has just been released by Lloyd’s MIU. The ‘Little Black Book’ was launched in May 1993 (by its founder Llewellyn Bankes-Hughes, now Publisher of Bunkerspot). In its 15-year history it has undergone many subtle changes, but remains true to the original in size and concept and is still by far the most reliable and accurate listing of bunker suppliers, traders and brokers available, either in print form or electronically.

The new edition lists over 1,200 distinct companies (12% more than the May 2007 edition), 1,450 offices in over 75 countries (150 higher) and 3,000 personnel (200 more than last time).

For this celebrated 30th edition, LMIU has added a 34-page summary of most of the world leading bunkering centres in the Americas, Europe, Mideast, Africa

and Asia, including less well-known markets such as Cuba, Romania, Libya and Indonesia. These summaries are provided by Bunkerspot.

Another innovation is a seven-month calendar and diary of bunkering events, which includes the IBIA Annual Dinner (18 February), Piraeus Bunker Course (5-6 March), Oxford Bunker Course (12-16 May) and Maritime Week Americas in Miami (19-23 May).

The BunkerNews Directory (November 2007 edition), with over 600 pages, including market summaries, company listings, comprehensive indices and a diary of events, is priced at US$162 / £85 per copy. To order a copy, go to www.lloydsmiu.com or email

[email protected], the less sophisticated but

still useful IBIA Membership List 2008 has also just been published. Available to IBIA members, it comprises 155 pages. Contact: [email protected].

physical attraction: chemoil in singapore, fujairah and … · 2016. 1. 7. · volume 4 number 6...

Documents