Transcript Presentation to the regional ports 2008 conference to be

Presentation to the
Regional Ports 2008 Conference
Townville 12-13 June 2008
by Llew Russell, Chief Executive Officer
of Shipping Australia Limited
Are regional ports ready to play their
role in the environmental debate?
Outline
In this presentation I will be addressing:
a.
Alternative marine power
b.
Are we ready for the new bio-hull fouling regime?
c.
Preparing for the planned new ballast water
management regime
d.
Places of refuge
e.
What potential stresses do coal loading and deballasting rates place on a vessel.
Setting the scene
+ Sea transport is one of the least environmentally damaging modes of
transport, and when compared with land based industry, is a comparatively
minor contributor to marine pollution from human activities.
+ Various international regulations have been adopted by the IMO to address
potential sources of pollution by ships eg. MARPOL 73/78 covers:
 Annex I Convention covering pollution by oil
 Annex II control of pollution of noxious liquid substances
 Annex III prevention of pollution by harmful substances in package
form
 Annex IV prevention of pollution by sewage from ships
 Annex V prevention of pollution by garbage from ships
 Annex VI prevention of air pollution from ships (this Annex has been
the subject of recent debate and will be amended in October this
year)
Comparison of exhaust gas emissions
Source: Swedish Network for
Transport and the Environment
International Chamber of
Commerce publication “Shipping
and the Environment A Code of
Practice”, Fourth edition, page
8. See www.marisec.org,
publications.
Comparative fuel consumption
Source: Swedish Network for
Transport and the Environment
International Chamber of
Commerce publication “Shipping
and the Environment A Code of
Practice”, Fourth edition, page
8. See www.marisec.org,
publications.
Comparison of CO2 emissions between different transport modes
Source: Swedish Network for
Transport and the Environment
International Chamber of
Commerce publication “Shipping
and the Environment A Code of
Practice”, Fourth edition, page
8. See www.marisec.org,
publications.
Shipping not standing still
+ Many SAL members actively working to
reduce environmental footprint
 Waste heat used for propulsion
 Upgraded computers improving
cargo handling, route and speed
efficiency
 Separation of wastes
 New cylinder lubrication systems
 Lower sulphur content in fuel
 Use of TBT-free anti-hull fouling
paint
 Inboard protected fuel tanks
Source:
Lloyd’s List
Maritime Asia
April/May 08, p 34
GREEN PASSPORT: Typical OOCL ships are designed with environmental efficiency in mind
Proposed revision of MARPOL Annex VI
The international shipping industry is strongly of the view that a holistic
approach should be adopted addressing the environmental challenges
that face shipping since measures addressing only one emission may
have effects on others which can have an adverse impact on the
environment.
+ Measures should be agreed internationally to ensure consistency
and regulation must focus on a relative reduction with the view to
continuously improve the efficiency of the emissions from individual
ships and recognise that absolution reduction objectives are not
necessarily within reach given the growth in world trade.
+ Regulation must ensure the free choice of methods to reduce CO2
emissions, for example using goal-based standards that will promote
innovation and cost effective solutions.
Proposed revision of MARPOL Annex VI
+ At the meeting earlier this year of the IMO Maritime Environment
Protection Committee (MEPC) there was a real breakthrough by the
international community in its efforts to slash up to 90% of the
shipping industry’s emissions. It reached an historic, unanimous
decision to further reduce sulphur levels in the fuel used by ships.
The main changes of progressive reduction in sulphur oxide (SOx)
content of fuel with the global sulphur cap reduced to 3.5% (currently
4.5%) from 2012 down to .05% from 2020, subject to a feasibility
review to be completed by 2018 which allows time for the issues
surrounding availability of the new cleaner marine fuel to be
addressed. (The new marine fuel quality standards are likely to be
ratified at the October meeting this year of the MEPC.)
Proposed revision of MARPOL Annex VI
+ A circular on the verification of sulphur content in fuel was also
approved and the ISO will be invited to develop a fuel/oil
specification.
+ The limits in sulphur emission controlled areas (SECAs) will be
reduced to 1.00% in 2010 (currently 1.50%) and a further reduction
to 0.10% from 2015. Currently two SECAs are designated: the
Baltic Sea and the North Sea Area.
+ There was a recommendation from BIMCO for micro SECAs be
considered whereby contracting parties would apply these reduced
sulphur levels at so many nautical miles from the coast. This was
not proceeded with but there is a concern that some countries that
cannot achieve designation of a SECA may apply national
standards that are stricter then the international standards which
would be detrimental to all concerned.
+ There will be a progressive reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions for marine engines to which the current Annex applies.
Proposed revision of MARPOL Annex VI
+ For engines constructed on or after 1/1/2000 a three tier structural
operates with tier I being diesel engines installed on a ship
constructed prior to 1/1/2011 applying the current standard in
Annex VI (17g/kWh).
+ Tier II for a diesel engine installed on a ship on or after 1/1/2011
reduced to 14g/kWh
+ Tier III for a diesel engine installed on a ship on or after 1/1/2016
reduced to 3.4g/kWh operating in SECAs. (These areas may be
designated for SOx or Particulate Matter or NOx or all three types
of emissions from ships)
+ Importantly for NOx emission standards for existing engines built
between 1/1/1990 and 1/1/2000 the 17g/kWh will apply if there is
a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a displacement per
cylinder at or above 90 litres.
Greenhouse gas emissions
+ MEPC has continued working towards the development of measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from ships. Australia and
Norway co-sponsored a correspondence group on GHG that reported to
MEPC 57 and the aim is to complete a carbon dioxide emission indexing
scheme and a CO2 emission baseline by the next MEPC. An intersessional meeting and the correspondence group will progress this
complex work.
Ballast water management
+ MEPC 57 agreed to a basic approval for four ballast water management
systems and final approval to one ballast water management system that
makes use of active substances.
+ Delegates will be aware of the debate in Australia over a national ballast
water system that includes domestic ballast water carried inter or intraState as from 1 July 2009. This date must be doubtful particularly bringing
all jurisdictions under the one system at one time as a result of mutual
agreement on the proclamation date.
+ Victoria has already introduced its own State-based ballast water
management system with different costs and reporting requirements from
the national system and the question of whether inspectors will be
operating under uniform national conditions or whether they will be the
AQIS inspectors has yet to be resolved.
+ Nevertheless, a new Inter-Governmental Agreement which now includes
New South Wales has been signed and AQIS is seeking advice from the
States on what would be required to have a national inspection system if
they were to provide it which is a positive move.
Ballast water management
+ Cost recovery requires further clarification and there is a subgroup meeting
on that as are groups monitoring specified pests in 18 ports including
Townsville. This is vital to create the baseline and populate the database for
the Ballast Water Management Unit which it is hoped will control the national
system.
+ To give you a better feel for the debate there has been lengthy discussions
over whether the inspector phones the Ballast Water Management Unit first
or notifies his superior officer in the State jurisdiction if a vessel looks like
failing the inspection.
+ It has been agreed to determine whether it is feasible to have national
ballast water plans on vessels prior to the international convention entering
into force which would then make them mandatory.
+ The new international ballast water convention (D2) was to apply to ships
built in 2009 but the IMO Assembly late last year agreed it would only apply
to such vessels after their second annual survey but no later then
31/12/2011.
Bio-hull fouling
+ A new regime was to be introduced 1 July this
year but that implementation date has been
deferred until later in the year.
+ Any exotic pests identified on vessel hulls will
need to be cleaned in an environmentally safe
way and the shipping industry has urged the
review of the ANZ Standard on in-water cleaning
particularly for relatively small infestations.
+ Large freight vessels and cruise ships are
considered low risk but nevertheless there
remains the issue of what to do with them if their
hulls are found to be fouled with exotic pests.
+ A major focus has been on non-trading vessels;
some of which are considered high risk.
Photo: Australian Quarantine Inspection Service
Alternative marine power
+ The term cold ironing was popularised years ago when the US were moth
balling warships and using shore based power to maintain critical idle
equipment although it originally came from the days when steamships
boilers went cold when they were in port for some time.
+ Many ports now provide cold ironing facilities eg. Seattle, New York, Los
Angeles, Long Beach, Florida, San Francisco, Vancouver, Gothenburg and
even Juneau in Alaska.
+ This measure could, depending on the power source, lead to a decrease in
GHG emissions but work is already underway within the ISO and the
International Electro Technical Committee (at IMO’s request) to develop
international standards for onshore power supply to ships.
+ Consideration needs to be given to the costs, effectiveness, technical
standards for high voltage onshore power supplies and possible increased
emissions from the onshore power plant.
Alternative marine power
+ There has been some Scandinavian
research that shows external emission
costs of onboard power generation are
much higher then total direct costs of
electricity from shore based power
connection. Cost estimates vary but a
reasonable level of utilisation by vessels is
required to cover that capital cost for both
the shore facility and on the vessels.
+ A number of lines have introduced new
systems and technologies that are claimed
to make cold ironing more cost effective.
+ In one case the container has been
modified and fitted with a shore side
power unit and positioned in a corner
of the vessel and when it berths power is
taken from the shore facility.
Alternative marine power
+ Another line has developed a system that allows a high voltage
shore based electrical cable to be plugged into a vessel’s bow
thrusters circuit which in turn connects through to the ship’s main
switchboard.
+ In Australia, we operate on 50 hertz and not 60 hertz as in most
countries in the world and thus a converter (cost around $1
million) would be required.
+ LA port estimated that depending on the size of the ship, cold
ironing will reduce NOx by 1 tonne and take more then half a
tonne of SOx out of the air each day the vessel is at berth and
plugged in.
US goes even further
+ 24 March 08, Long Beach and LA harbour commissioners approved an
incentive programme aimed at accelerating cargo vessel operators use of
cleaner burning fuel when transiting within 40 nautical miles of the San
Pedro Bay.
+ Port have earmarked almost $90 million for the next twelve months to pay
the difference between the price of bunker fuel and more costly lower
sulphur diesel fuel available for vessel operators who make the fuel switch
at least 20 nautical miles out.
+ Vessels will also be required to use low sulphur fuel in their ancillary engines
while at berth in the port complex.
+ To qualify ships must participate in the port’s voluntary vessel speed
reduction programme limiting speeds to 12 knots on approach to the port.
+ The scheme could be extended beyond 30 June 2009.
+ Will Australian ports follow suit?
Requests for a place of refuge
+ National Plan Management Committee currently considering this issue of
importance to both shipping industry and ports.
+ Granting access to places of refuge can involve decisions on a case by case
basis with a balance being achieved in the advantages for the affected ship
and the environment resulting from bringing the ship into a place of refuge
and the risk to the environment resulting from that ship being near the coast
(IMO A23/Reg 949, para 1.7).
+ Within internal waters ie 3 nautical miles generally a place of refuge request
will be granted by the relevant State/Territory Government agency and
outside that limit to the Australian EEZ, AMSA in consultation with GBRMPA
– however when MERCOM has taken action under AMSA’s powers of
intervention, a place of refuge request may be dealt with in any Australian
maritime zone.
+ There are no designated areas or places of refuge but it is a strong
recommendation of SAL that potential areas that could be used depending
on the circumstances of each individual case should be identified as
potentially places of refuge to expedite the approval process in the event of
an emergency.
Safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers
+ A code of practice has been developed by the IMO to provide guidance to
shipowners, masters, shippers, operators, bulk carriers, charters and
terminal operators for the safe handling, loading and unloading of solid bulk
cargoes.
+ Effectively implemented by AMSA under Marine Orders 34, Solid Bulk
Cargoes Issue 6 Compilation number 1 (December 2007).
+ Provides that at least 48 hours before commencing to load, the operator, the
master and agent of the ship must furnish the surveyor at the AMSA office at
the nearest port of loading, signed notice containing details of vessel and
importantly cargo information including density of the cargo.
+ A surveyor may at any time inspect the ship loading to ensure compliance
and prior to the loading, the master must demonstrate by appropriate means
to a surveyor, that the allowable shear forces and bending movements will
not be exceeded during loading etc.
Safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers
+ The manager, ship inspector may prohibit the loading of the cargo if the
above has not been complied with.
+ Marine Orders 35 also sets out additional safety measures for bulk carriers
(July 2006) that makes particular reference to the implementation of relevant
international Conventions and Resolutions.
+ This underlines the importance that clearly both ports and ship operators
place on ensuring that stresses on the hull of the ship will not eventually
lead to catastrophic failure.
Conclusion
+ As you will see, both ship operators and regional ports share a great interest
in the environment and it is important to be kept appraised of international
developments in this respect.
+ Serious challenges will face regional ports in the future regarding not only
the implementation of future IMO regulations but importantly how Australia
will react and implement the relevant Convention eg. in terms of:
 micro SECAs,
 provision of facilities for cold ironing
 Ensuring domestic ballast water management systems are complied with
 Enforcing the new bio-hull fouling regime
 Coping with a future carbon trading scheme and how that impacts on shipping
(eg. it is our understanding that facilities will have to report on carbon outputs)
 There is the impact of other environmental implications such as being ready to
provide places of refuge and have a full understanding of MERCOM powers.
Conclusion
+ Meeting these challenges will require a
high degree of consultation,
communication and knowledge of
evolution of the environmental debate.
+ Importantly practices and standards
designed to limit the impact of company
operations on the environment should
not be implemented in isolation but
should be closely linked with other
operating standards, including standards
of safe navigation and safety of life and
trade facilitation.
+ Our ability to cope is directly reliant upon
our ability and capacity to co-operate
collectively and achieve practical
outcomes.