latin american panel miami, 24 july 2003 “ post prestige ” peter m. swift
TRANSCRIPT
Latin American Panel
Miami, 24 July 2003
“ POST PRESTIGE ”
Peter M. Swift
Prestige Accident
An INTERTANKO member company
Member in good standing for more than 14 years Ship with only 2 owners – last since 1988 Only one classification society – ABS Flag change to Bahamas from Panama Recent surveys fully satisfactory:
2001: Special survey
2002: Annual survey
PSC (Russia)
Oil major (SIRE database)
Prestige Accident
European Actions:
New measures to restrict single hulls in Europe Heavy fuel oil to be carried in double hulls Spanish decree (Italy follows) “Malaga Treaty” – 200 mile exclusion zone for
single hulls carrying heavy oils UNCLOS challenged Moves to declare Western European PSSA
Increase penal sanctions / criminalisation
Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction
It is imperative that ALL events surrounding the accident are investigated impartially
Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction
Places of Refuge must be addressed promptly
Safe HavensSafe Havens
A Solution Waiting to be ImplementedA Solution Waiting to be Implemented
“ It is now quite clear that, if decisive action had been taken at an early stage to move the ship to a more sheltered location, the ship and its cargo would almost certainly have been saved and any pollution would have been minimal. ”
Bahamas Maritime Authority – release
Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction
The continued detention of master is not acceptable
Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction
The IMO is the proper forum for any new measures
International law must be upheld and strict adherence is essential
EU Proposals
1. Revision to EU Regulation EC 417/2002 2. Amendments to MARPOL Annex I
• Accelerated Phase-out of single hulls
• Expanded Condition Assessment Scheme
• Ban on Heavy Oil in single-hulled tankers
Single-hull tanker phase-out comparision IMO 13G – EU proposal
EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I
• IMO is the appropriate forum for this debate
• All such proposals must be subject to rigorous analysis and impact assessment
• Note decisions of only two years ago
• Concern that there are no compelling reasons for change
• Need stability and predictability to improve safety and environmental protection
Oil tanker fleet above 5,000 dwt as of June 2003
%
31
5443
59 6654
10
14
12
128
2
59
3245
29 2644
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
5,000-30,000
30,000-60,000
60,000-80,000
80,000-120,000
120,000-200,000
200,000+
Single hull
DB/DS
Double hull
Tanker fleet: double hull development
622
51
75 81
9478
49
25 19
0
20
40
60
80
100
1991 1997 End 02 End 07 End 10
SH share (%)
DH share (%)
EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I
Accelerated Phase-out
• Withdrawal “Peaks” in 2003/2005 and 2010
• Many young tankers withdrawn prematurely
Will:• Destabilise freight, shipbuilding and ship recycling
markets• Unsettle business planning environment• Destroy USD 4 bn. asset values
Tanker fleet : 5,000 dwt and above mid 2003 by year of build and hull-type
Number
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1984
1986
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Double Hull
Double side & double bottom
Single Hull
Single-hull tanker phase-out 5,000 dwt and aboveNumber
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
MARPOL 13G
OPA 90
EU proposal
EU prop. adjust*
*2005 would be earliest IMO implementation date
Tanker age profile-deliveries-phase-outMil dwt
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-1970 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013
Deliveries
DB/DSs
DH
SH
Phase-out
Tanker age profile-deliveries-phase-out
Number
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
-1970 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700DH
DB/DSs
SH
Deliveries
Phase-out
EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I
Expanded Condition Assessment Scheme
• Inconsistent logic – CAS from 15 years of age, but tankers withdrawn irrespective of this provision
• CAS will require revisions if it is to be applied as proposed
• It will not be possible for all 15 y.o. Category 2 and 3 tankers to undertake CAS before April 2005
EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex IBan on Heavy Oil in single-hulled tankers
Principal concerns:
• Definition of heavy crude oils
• Impact on certain oil trades
• Short term availability of double hull tonnage in certain shipping sectors, e.g. Panamax and possibly Aframax
EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I
And finally
Disappointment that there is NO reference to the NEED for PLACES of REFUGE
Phase-out schedules - million dwt
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Max 25 years
Max 20 years
Max 23 years
EU proposal
Phase-out schedules - number
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Max 25 years
Max 20 years
Max 23 years
EU proposal
www.intertanko.com
Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction
It is imperative that ALL events surrounding the accident are investigated impartially
Places of Refuge must be addressed promptly
The continued detention of master is not acceptable
The IMO is the proper forum for any new measures
International law must be upheld and strict adherence is essential