IMO and IPIECA Launch Global Initiative for South East Asia (GI-SEA) to improve oil spill preparedness and response capabilities - IMO

Posted - Briefing: 08, March 21, 2013 0 IMO

IMO and  IPIECA, the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues, have jointly launched a new Global Initiative (GI) programme aimed at improving the oil spill preparedness and response capabilities in south east Asia, at a regional workshop that took place from 20 to 21 March 2013 in Jakarta, Indonesia.  The workshop and launch event was attended by more than 70 high-level representatives from Government and the maritime, oil and gas industry from countries across the south east Asia region.

 

The Statement of Intent on Establishing the GI-SEA Programme on Oil Spill Preparedness and Response was signed by Mr. Jose Matheickal, Marine Environment Division, IMO and Mr. Brian Sullivan, Executive Director, IPIECA, and witnessed by Captain Yan Risuandi, Director for Marine Safety and Acting Director for Sea and Coastguard of the Directorate General of Sea Transportation, Ministry of Transport, Indonesia, representing the host Government for the GI-SEA workshop.  

Click here for photos.

 

IMO and IPIECA have, for a number of years, been working with their international and regional partners to establish this new regional programme, which demonstrates a major commitment from both Government and industry to improve oil spill preparedness and response in the region. This new joint-initiative will build collaboration and create a forum for joint action, focusing on practical activities such as training, workshops and joint exercises in the field of oil spill preparedness and response. More importantly GI-SEA will also support the objectives of the ASEAN Oil Spill Response Action Plan (ASEAN-OSRAP) being developed by the ASEAN members with the support of the IMO Integrated Technical Co-operation Programme (ITCP). 

 

The GI South East Asia programme was initiated to address an increased level of oil spill risk due to higher levels of shipping traffic, and increased exploration and production activities across the region. A full-time Project Manager based in Singapore, employed by IPIECA, will oversee the GI-SEA programme activities.

 

The Global Initiative
The GI, established in 1996 by IPIECA and IMO, continues to expand its work to reduce the level of global oil spill risk in priority locations around the world. The programme provides a body for co-operation between governments and the oil and gas industry, and through it, IPIECA and IMO work together to help countries develop national structures and capability for oil spill preparedness and response.

 

The Global Initiative for West, Central and Southern Africa (GI WACAF) was launched in 2006. 

 

Websites:
IPIECA: http://www.ipieca.org/topic/oil-spill-preparedness/global-initiative
ASEAN: http://www.asean.org/
GI-WACAF project: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/SpecialProgrammesAndInitiatives/Pages/The-GI-WACAF-Project.aspx

 
Post to be found at:
http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/08-GI-SEA.aspx

Shipping Corporations to Pay $10.4 Million for Environmental Crimes on Four Ships - Maritime Executive

Posted - March 22,2013 - Maritime Executive 

$2.6 Million Will Go to Projects to Aid Coastal Environment Hit by Hurricane Sandy

Two shipping firms based in Germany and Cyprus today pleaded guilty to felony obstruction of justice charges and violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships related to the deliberate concealment of vessel pollution from four ships that visited U.S. ports in New Jersey, Delaware and Northern California, announced the Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in New Jersey and Delaware, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Paul J. Fishman and U.S. Coast Guard Deputy Commander of the Delaware Bay Sector Capt. Todd Wiemers announced the plea agreement – which includes a $10.4 million penalty, $2.6 million of which will be used address environmental damage caused by Hurricane Sandy – at a press conference in Newark, N.J.

According to a multi-district plea agreement arising out of charges brought in the District of New Jersey and District of Delaware, Columbia Shipmanagement (Deutschland) GmbH (CSM-D), a German corporation, and Columbia Shipmanagement Ltd. (CSM-CY), a Cypriot company, have agreed to pay a $10.4 million penalty and be placed on probation for four years.  During probation, the companies will be subject to the terms of an environmental compliance program that requires outside audits by an independent company and oversight by a court appointed monitor.  The shipping firms admitted that four of their ships (three oil tankers and one container ship) had intentionally bypassed required pollution prevention equipment and falsified the oil record book, a required log regularly inspected by the U.S. Coast Guard.  The case is the largest vessel pollution settlement in either New Jersey or Delaware. The guilty pleas were entered before U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton in Newark federal court. Sentencing is set for June 24, 2013.

“Deliberate pollution and intentional falsification of ship records to hide environmental crimes are serious offenses.  These reprehensible actions not only damage the marine environment, but also put law breakers at a competitive advantage over those who respect the law and play the by rules” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.  “We intend to send a message with these prosecutions that those engaged in deliberate despoiling of our precious natural resources will be vigorously prosecuted.”

“We in New Jersey are as sensitive as anyone to the need to preserve the shoreline,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Paul J. Fishman. “Shipping companies who foul the water by deliberately discharging oil and lying about it to the Coast Guard can expect to be prosecuted.”

“This prosecution is a fine example of multi-district cooperation in enforcing federal environmental law and achieving a just sentence,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware Charles M. Oberly III.”

“This was a case of wilful pollution and deliberate falsification of records designed to deceive the Coast Guard,” said Captain David Fish, Chief of Investigations for the Coast Guard. “It takes both resources and a culture of compliance to abide by the law. We are hopeful that the remedial measures required as part of this criminal conviction will have a positive impact on these companies and serve as a message to other maritime companies as to what is expected.” The proposed $10.4 million penalty includes $2.6 million in organizational community service payments to assist the coastal maritime environment in New Jersey and Delaware damaged by Hurricane Sandy.  The plea agreement directs the funds to environmental projects that will be selected by the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation to help conserve, preserve, and restore the coastal environment of New Jersey and Delaware hit by Hurricane Sandy.  

The investigation into the M/T King Emerald was launched on May 7, 2012, after several crew members provided cell phone photos and other evidence to Coast Guard officers conducting a routine inspection.  The King Emerald was engaged in various types of illegal discharges of bilge waste dating back to at least 2010.  In pleading guilty, the defendants admitted that illegal discharges of both sludge and oily bilge waste were discharged at night off the coast of Central America, including a discharge within the Exclusive Economic Zone of Costa Rica where a national park is located.  The ship’s second engineer pleaded guilty previously and will be sentenced in Newark on April 3, 2013.

The Delaware investigation began in October 2012, after several crew members of the M/T Nordic Passat provided the Coast Guard with a thumb drive containing photographs and video showing how illegal discharges had been sent overboard through the ship’s sewage system.  They also alleged that sludge had been put into the ship’s cargo tanks and that logs showing sludge had been incinerated onboard had been falsified.  The charges involving the M/V Cape Maas stem from a whistle-blower report to the Coast Guard when the ship visited the port in San Francisco.  He provided a video showing the operation of the oily water separator pumping overboard without the use of the oil content monitor to detect and prevent oil from being illegally discharged.  

Just two weeks prior to today’s plea, the defendants and their attorneys disclosed violations on a fourth ship, the M/T Cape Taft that was then anchored in New York waters and destined for New Jersey.  After the ship disclosed problems to the company, an internal investigation revealed that the ship’s oily water separator had been used improperly for some time.  Instead of sensing a sample of overboard discharges, it was instead flushed with fresh water by the crew.  The ship’s oil record book was revised by CSM-D to reveal 16 instances where it was false.  The defendants cooperated with the investigation and provided the government with video replays of the oil content monitor showing when the crew had “tricked” the sensor with fresh water.

In pleading guilty, the defendants have admitted the following in a detailed joint factual statement filed in court:

• The King Emerald oil tanker used three different methods to illegally dispose of oily bilge waste.  In April 2012, approximately five tons of oily waste was discharged in the exclusive economic zone of Costa Rica approximately 45 miles from a national park.

• At least three chief engineers and the second engineer were involved in illegal discharges and intentional falsification of the oil record book for the King Emerald. In one instance, the oily water separator was operated solely for the purpose of generating data on the ship’s electronic recording device to account for an illegal discharge that had already taken place.

• During the Coast Guard boarding in Carteret, N.J., the second engineer lied to inspectors and then hid a valve used to make illegal discharges in an overhead space on the ship.

• Oil contaminated bilge waste was illegally pumped overboard from the M/T Nordic Passat on the orders of the chief engineer and second engineer with a portable pump and “magic hose” that was draped down three levels of the engine room to dump overboard through the sewage system.

• Illegal discharges have been made from the M/T Nordic Passat since 2006 by “tricking” the sensor designed to detect oil with fresh water during overboard discharges on a regular and routine practice by or at the direction of the chief engineer and second engineer.  As a result, virtually every discharge totaling approximately 2,000 tons of unmonitored and oil contaminated bilge  waste were discharged into ocean waters illegally and in violation of MARPOL over at least a six year period and all of the corresponding entries in the oil record book were false.

• During the Coast Guard boarding of the Nordic Passat, senior ship engineers lied to the Coast Guard and told lower level crew members to lie.

• On the M/V Cape Maas, a container ship, the manufacturer’s seal on the oil content monitor had been broken and fresh water had been used to trick the sensor. 

The plea agreement sets forth the counts charged as to each defendant in each district including six counts involving three vessels in New Jersey and four counts involving one ship in Delaware.  The guilty pleas include violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships for failing to maintain an accurate oil record book; obstruction of justice, and making false statements.  The maximum penalty for each of these felony offenses is $500,000 or up to twice the gross gain or loss from the offense for a corporation.

This prosecution was made possible through the combined efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard Districts 1, 5 and 11, Coast Guard Sectors New York, Delaware Bay, and San Francisco, Coast Guard Investigative Service, Coast Guard Office of Maritime and International Law, and the Coast Guard Office of Investigations and Analysis.  The cases were prosecuted by Richard A. Udell, Senior Trial Attorney, and Stephen Da Ponte, Trial Attorney, of the Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division, Kathleen O’Leary, Assistant U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, and Edmond Falgowski, Assistant U.S. Attorney in Delaware.  Assistance was also provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

Post to be found at:
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Shipping-Corporations-to-Pay-104-Million-for-Environmental-Crimes-on-Four-Ships-2013-03-22/

KHI to build LNG-fuelled ships in China - Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide

Posted - Friday, 22 March 2013 | 17:45 - Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide

 Japanese shipbuilder Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI) is considering constructing large-sized LNG fuelled ships in China. The company will build large-sized ships including oil tankers, containerships, and roro vessels using LNG as fuel from 2015 at its joint venture shipyard with Cosco in Nantong, NACKS. KHI said building in China was 20% cheaper than Japan and it expected big name Chinese shipping companies to be among the clients cueing up for these new environmentally friendly ship types. Source: Sino Ship News

Post to be found at:
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/News.aspx?ElementId=f741ef27-417c-471d-837a-fdd20f194b16&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily

Maritime carbon capture ‘technically feasible’ - Engineering and Technology Magazine

Posted - March 20, 2013 - By Lorna Sharpe-  Engineering and Technology Magazine

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) equipment could be used to reduce CO2 emissions from shipping, according to a concept study.

Ship classification society Det Norske Veritas (DNV)’s Greek R&D labs and UK-based Process Systems Enterprise were partners in the Maritime CCS project, with DNV’s Greek R&D labs leading on the shipping aspects while PSE provided expertise in chemical engineering and in modelling and simulation for process technologies.
Together they developed a concept design for on-board chemical capture, liquefaction and temporary storage of CO2 for ships in transit until discharge into transmission and storage infrastructures at the next suitable port.
They say the results show that the concept is technically feasible and capable of reducing maritime CO2 emissions by up to 65 per cent, while creating a tradable product.
Professor Nikolaos Kakalis, head of DNV Research & Innovation Greece, explained that the system uses amine-based chemical absorption to separate carbon dioxide from the flue gases.
It is then condensed and liquefied for storage in cryogenic tanks. This is established technology in onshore power stations, which the partners migrated and made fit for shipping use, he said.
The concept was developed for a typical Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC), and took into account the unique challenges posed by the maritime environment – constant movement, limited space and access to utilities, stringent safety requirements and the need for energy efficiency.
The carbon capture plant is located aft of the main funnel and the storage tanks fore of the accommodation section with no change in the vessel’s cargo capacity and without obstructing sightlines.
Professor Costas Pantelides, managing director of PSE, said: “This has been a challenging design problem with tight constraints. Applying a model-based engineering approach has been key to exploring the process decision space rapidly and effectively, and developing technically feasible and economically viable solutions.”
Kakalis said the next step will be to find companies that are able to start developing a prototype. “This is quite a radical approach. It will be really interesting to see how it can work, in small scale at first and then perhaps larger scale,” he told E&T.
The Maritime CCS project was jointly financed by the two partners, the UK’s Technology Strategy Board and the Research Council of Norway under the Eurostars initiative, an EU programme to support market-oriented R&D with the active involvement of SMEs. National governments fund their own participants.
Maritime CO2 emissions are estimated at over 1000 million tonnes per year, or 3 per cent of total emissions, and are expected to reach 2000 to 3000Mt by 2050.
The UK government has included maritime emissions in the reduction targets set by the Climate Change Bill, and the International Maritime Organisation is expected to drive a reduction from international shipping.




Post to be found at:
http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/mar/ccs-shipping.cfm

Government to assess impact of shipping emissions limits - Air Quality News

Post - March 20, 2013 - Air Quality News Blog (This entry was posted in News by Michael Holder. Bookmark the permalink.)

The findings of a report suggesting 2015 sulphur reduction requirements could cost UK shipping 2,000 jobs will be considered alongside health impacts in government assessment
An assessment of the UK public health and environment impacts from 2015 international shipping requirements for sulphur exhaust emissions is to be published by the government later this year.
According to transport minister Stephen Hammond, the Department for Transport impact assessment will also consider the economic costs to the UK of further reducing sulphur emissions from shipping, following a recent report suggesting the requirements could cause the loss of 2,000 maritime jobs and increase carbon emissions.

The UK government is to assess the economic and environmental impact of sulphur dioxide regulations from shipping

Mr Hammond’s announcement came on Monday (March 18) in a written answer following questions submitted to parliament by Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull East, Karl Turner, and Hayes and Harlington MP for Labour John McDonnell.
Both had questioned whether the government intended to assess the economic impact on the UK of the sulphur emissions requirements following the UK Chamber of Shipping report, which was published on March 8.
The UK Chamber of Shipping is the trade association for the UK shipping industry and represents around 140 members from across the sector.

2015 requirements

Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions requirements are set out in Annex VI of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which is also linked to the EU Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels Directive (2005/33/EC).
Since July 2010, regulations limit sulphur content in shipping fuels to 1% in many European waters, but from January 1 2015 the sulphur content allowed in shipping fuels will be further reduced to 0.1%.
The UK Chamber of Shipping report showed that the increased costs of using low-sulphur fuel or sulphur reducing technology could result in more freight moving by road and also an increase in road diesel costs, putting 2,000 maritime jobs at risk and contributing to an increase in carbon emissions.
The report also said sulphur emissions-reducing technology, or ‘scrubbers’, were ‘not yet sufficiently proven’, while sulphur-free Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) was ‘not appropriate for most of the existing UK fleet’.
As a result, responding to Mr Turner, Mr Hammond said: “The Department welcomes the report commissioned by the Chamber of Shipping and I will ensure that we will consider its findings carefully.
“The evidence about the impact on employment and freight operations from this and other relevant studies will be incorporated into the Department’s Impact Assessment on the new sulphur requirements, which will be published later this year. Our assessment will also consider the economic cost to the UK as well as the benefits in terms of improved public health and reduced damage to the environment.”
The UK Chamber of Shipping report, ‘Impact on Jobs and the Economy of Meeting the Requirements of the MARPOL Annex VI’, is available on its website.
Last week (March 14) a European Environment Agency report noted that sulphur emissions from shipping had fallen since 1990, but said the shipping sector was still ‘one of the most unregulated sources of air pollution’ (see airqualitynews.com story).

Post to  be found at:
http://www.airqualitynews.com/2013/03/20/government-to-assess-impact-of-shipping-emissions-limits/

U.S. crude oil production on track to surpass imports for first time since 1995 - U.S. Energy Information Administration

Posted - March 20, 2013 -  Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,  
Short-Term Energy Outlook

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 2013 Short-Term Energy Outlook.

---

Monthly crude oil production in the United States is expected to exceed the amount of U.S. crude oil imports later this year for the first time since February 1995. The gap between monthly U.S. crude oil production and imports is projected to be almost 2 million barrels per day (bbl/d) by the end of next year—according to EIA's March 2013 Short-Term Energy Outlook.
According to EIA's projections:

• Monthly crude oil production could surpass net crude oil imports later this year.
• Monthly crude oil production is forecast to top 8 million bbl/d in the fourth quarter of 2014, which would be the highest level since 1988.
• Net crude oil imports are expected to fall below 7 million bbl/d in the fourth quarter of 2014 for the first time since 1995.

This projected change is primarily because of rising domestic crude oil production, particularly from shale and other tight rock formations in North Dakota and Texas.
Given the uncertainties in this forecast, the timing of the crossover between U.S. crude oil production and net crude oil imports could change, based largely on supply conditions. For example, supply would decrease if a strong 2013 hurricane season disrupts U.S. offshore oil production (and thus delays or prevents a crossover), or increase if there are higher-than-expected increases in tight oil production (meaning production might exceed imports sooner than forecast).

Post to be found at:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10451

MMA researchers are helping to develop low emissions marine fuels - Bangor Daily News

Posted - Wednesday, March 20, 2013    Last update: 9:49 a.m. -By Ardeana Hamlin, BDN Staff

Posted March 13, 2013, at 12:50 p.m. - By Brian Swartz -Weekly Staff Editor

CASTINE — Maine Maritime Academy faculty and students are conducting research that will help reduce engine emissions and lower fuel costs for commercial shipping.
Around the globe, marine vessels burn different fuels to power their engines. Among these fuels are Bunker C oil and diesel, according to Rich Kimball, MMA associate professor of engineering. When marine engines burn those fuels, pollutants such as nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter are emitted into the air.
A worldwide effort to reduce all pollution related to commercial shipping led to the signing of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships in November 1973.
Under the Convention, the International Maritime Organization has established standards to reduce various pollutants. The standards are being phased in gradually. Currently, the deadlines for reducing the levels of nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide and particular matter loom on the horizon.
According to Kimball, ship owners are scrambling to meet the new standards. Possible solutions range from burning low-sulfur fuel to retrofitting an existing ship with a new engine.
Such solutions are expensive. Low-sulfur fuels could cause fuel prices to increase while repowering a ship with a new engine could result in it being more cost-effective to scrap the ship entirely.
Under another proposal, scrubbers could be added to clean a ship’s engine emissions. Kimball described this solution as “more feasible” for large commercial ships and “problematic for work boats,” such as ferries and tugs.
Other solutions could be feasible, as MMA researchers are discovering. The college established the Marine Engine Testing and Emissions Laboratory so researchers — faculty members and students — can “work on marine engine emissions and efficiencies improvements that can be practically implemented into industry,” Kimball said.
The current research efforts at METEL include:
• A project involving thermoelectric heat recovery systems that convert the waste heat in an engine’s exhaust directly into electricity. The school is working with the American Bureau of Shipping and other industrial partners, he said.
• A project involving the development of low-cost, low-emission marine fuels which utilize biofuel waste products.
“The bio[fuels] industry produces tons of waste products, such as glycerin,” Kimball said. “There is a glut of glycerin on the market; it’s viewed as a commodity right now, there is so much of it. It’s low cost, compared to even the lowest grade fuels.”
In collaboration with the Cape Elizabeth-based SeaChange Group, researchers at MMA and the University of Maine are developing and testing low-cost, low-emission marine fuels. Launched as a technology start-up in 2009, the SeaChange Group has focused on developing such fuels; grants from the Maine Technology Institute, the National Science Foundation, the United States Department of Energy and industry have funded research efforts.
According to Kimball, a fuel formulated with blended diesel and glycerin shows excellent possibilities. “If blended with diesel fuel in an emulsion, [glycerin] can actually lower the emissions” of nitrogen oxide and particular matter in engine emissions, he said. Because it contains no sulfur, glycerin also lessens the amount of sulfur emissions.
According to Kimball, research has revealed that a diesel-glycerin emulsion also improves the fuel’s lubricity, a factor that reduces engine wear-and-tear.
Research has led the SeaChange Group to develop Eco-Hybrid Fuel, a trademarked product that “we have proved in concept” and “we have tested in engines” at MMA’s Castine campus, Kimball said. “We’re really focused on the development side, testing the fuels.”
MMA students have been widely involved in the research.
“We are a college; we do not have” graduate students to conduct research, Kimball pointed out. “The student component is vital to what we’re doing at Maine Maritime Academy. We’re working on the next generation of fuels for the shipping industry,” he said. “Because of their participation in the research, our students will bring their knowledge about those fuels into the industry as they graduate.”
“We have attracted a lot of students because of the research initiatives we have been involved in,” Kimball said.
Independent laboratories are testing Eco-Hybrid fuels to certify that they “can run in large diesel marine engines,” Kimball said. He expects the fuels to pass all testing and become commercially available in Maine within the next year or so.
“It’s a win-win for the industry,” Kimball said. “We have demonstrated that it significantly lowers the emissions” of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter and also “sulfur dioxide by dilution with the glycerin. It’s a fuel that can work in existing engines,” which could mean that in order to meet the tightened emissions standards, ship owners need not retrofit their vessels with expensive new engines.
Because it includes glycerin, Eco-Hybrid Fuel not only costs less, but is considered a 30-to-40 percent renewable resource fuel making it “lower cost per kilowatt hour than the base diesel” fuel.
The implications for the shipping industry extend worldwide; “this is really an international-scale project,” Kimball said.

Post to be found at:
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/03/13/news/bangor/mma-researchers-are-helping-to-develop-low-emissions-marine-fuels/

Canada looks to bolster crude oil tanker safety - Reuters.com

Posted - Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:49pm EDT - Reuters.com

Ottawa to study new laws, liability, compensation
* Pipeline projects would mean surge in tanker traffic
* New safety measures introduced
CALGARY, Alberta, March 18 (Reuters) - Canada's government will examine strengthening oil tanker safety, including introducing new laws and penalties, as it seeks to increase vastly exports of crude oil to Asia and other markets, it said on Monday.
The Transport Canada ministry said it has formed an expert tanker safety panel to review the current system and propose new measures by this autumn as proposed projects such as Enbridge Inc's Northern Gateway pipeline and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners' Trans Mountain pipeline expansion point to a huge increase in ocean-going traffic.
The moves are aimed at improving preparedness and response in case of oil spills and other accidents, Transport Canada said.
Fear of such risks is front and center in the debates over the controversial pipelines, which are opposed by environmental groups and many aboriginal communities in British Columbia.
Among areas to be reviewed by the three-member panel are liability and compensation. Ship owners are responsible for the cost of cleaning up any oil spill and are required to have insurance to an amount linked to the tonnage of the vessel, according to the ministry.
If damages exceed the owner's liability, international and domestic funds provide additional compensation to a total of C$1.36 billion ($1.33 billion).
The government also said it is amending current legislation to boost requirements for pollution prevention at oil-handling facilities, increase oversight and enforcement, introduce new laws for contravening the act and remove legal barriers that could block response organizations from participating in cleanup operations.
It also announced a series of new safety measures, such as increasing inspections of foreign tankers, expanding aerial monitoring and modernizing navigation systems, it said.
The C$6 billion Northern Gateway pipeline would take 525,000 barrels of Alberta crude a day to Kitimat, British Columbia, where it would be loaded onto vessels and shipped through the Douglas Channel to the Pacific. The number of tankers connected to the project is pegged at more than 200 annually.
The C$5.4 billion Trans Mountain expansion would nearly triple the current throughout to 890,000 barrels a day. That pipeline would extend to Vancouver from near Edmonton, Alberta. The number of oil tankers in that harbor would increase to more than 400 a year from about 60 currently.
Regulators are scheduled to make a decision on whether to approve Northern Gateway by the end of this year. Kinder Morgan has yet to apply to proceed with its expansion.
One environmental group opposed to the oil pipelines said Ottawa's moves would not change the main risks posed by the major increase in traffic carrying Alberta's oil sands-derived crude.
"We are saying less tar sands oil, not more, thank you very much. The truth is the safest thing we can do is say no to the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines," Ben West, tar sands campaigner for ForestEthics Advocacy, said in a statement.

Post to be found at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/18/canada-oil-tankers-idUSL1N0CAD5020130318

BP Loses Bid to Bar Gross-Negligence Finding in Spill Trial - Maritime Executive

Posted - March 19, 2013 -  Bloomberg. - Allen Johnson Jr. and Margaret Cronin Fisk --With assistance from Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware. Editors: Glenn Holdcraft, David E. Rovella.Post at Maritime Executive dot com

BP Plc lost an effort to eliminate the possibility of a finding of gross negligence that might trigger fines as much as $17.6 billion in the trial over the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

“I’m not going to grant that motion,” U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans today told a lawyer for the London- based oil company. “I don’t see any point in arguing it.”

BP’s lawyer Andrew Langan asked Barbier to disallow a gross-negligence finding as lawyers for the plaintiffs suing the company rested their case. “We don’t think there has been a finding of gross negligence” against BP, Langan said, only to be immediately rebuffed by the judge in the nonjury trial.

For BP, a finding of gross negligence would mean the company might be liable to the U.S. for as much as $17.6 billion in Clean Water Act fines, as well as unspecified punitive damages to claimants who weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs last year.

The blowout and explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon killed 11 workers and spilled more than 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The accident sparked hundreds of lawsuits against London-based BP, owner of the well, Vernier, Switzerland-based Transocean Ltd. and Houston-based Halliburton Co., which provided cement services.

Legal Tests

The trial over liability for the disaster began Feb. 25. Barbier will determine responsibility for the disaster and whether one or more of the companies acted with willful or wanton misconduct or reckless indifference -- the legal requirement for establishing gross negligence.

For Transocean and Halliburton, findings of gross negligence would mean the companies might be held liable for punitive damages for all plaintiffs.

Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on today’s ruling.

Lawyers for Halliburton and two other defendants, Cameron International Corp., and M-I Swaco, a unit of Schlumberger Ltd., told Barbier today they would file motions to erase the gross- negligence claim.

Houston-based Cameron, the maker of the blowout preventer on the project, agreed to pay BP $250 million in December 2011 in exchange for the oil company’s indemnifying it from damage claims. The settlement didn’t cover fines, penalties or punitive damages.

Drilling Fluid

M-I Swaco, which provided drilling fluid, settled with BP last year without disclosing the terms. Swaco’s lawyers filed a motion today asking Barbier to find that that there is no evidence that the company engaged in willful or wanton misconduct. It also asked for a finding that no acts or omissions by the company caused the disaster, according to court papers.

Transocean began presenting its defense with testimony by Calvin Barnhill, a petroleum engineer hired by the company as an expert witness.

Barnhill, who has investigated some 100 oilfield incidents, disagreed with earlier testimony by a U.S. Justice Department drilling expert who characterized the crew of the doomed Deepwater Horizon rig as complacent.

“They responded every time an event occurred,” Barnhill testified today. “They were trying to get it right. I think they just misinterpreted what they were seeing.”

No Intent

After three weeks of testimony in which plaintiff and government lawyers accused BP, Transocean and Halliburton of placing profits above safety, Barnhill said he saw no evidence that anyone on the rig intentionally ignored pressure anomalies in the minutes before the deadly blowout of April 20, 2010.

“I don’t think anybody out there deliberately misinterpreted what they were seeing,” Barnhill said.

Barnhill said Transocean’s drilling crew had the responsibility to monitor the Macondo well “at all times” for a dangerous “kick,” pressure anomaly or other indication of a blowout. A kick is an entry of gas or fluid into the wellbore, which can set off a blowout.

BP, as operator of the well, was responsible for designing and conducting a critical negative-pressure test, used to check whether cementing had sealed off any leaks in the well, he said. The test would have been used to shut down drilling operations, if it hadn’t been misinterpreted as successful, he said.

Barnhill said a negative test with even “inconclusive” results should have resulted in a shutdown.

‘Isn’t Baseball’

“This isn’t baseball,” he said. A “tie doesn’t go to the runner.”

Barnhill said the Transocean drill crew should have shut down the well at 9:30 p.m. the night of the explosion, at the same time that pumps were shut off.

The subsea blowout preventer and other emergency measures weren’t activated until approximately 17 minutes later, Barnhill testified. Transocean drilling supervisor, Randy Ezell, BP well site leader Donald Vidrine and others made phone calls alerting the command center of the vessel of continuing increases in pressure despite the shutdown of all pumps on the rig.

“They started taking actions consistent with well control,” Barnhill said of Vidrine and the Transocean drilling supervisors and crew members. “Unfortunately, they were too far gone” by that time, he said.

Moments later, pressurized oil and gas shot up from the well more than a mile below the Gulf of Mexico. The rig burst into flames and sank two days later, setting off the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

Engineer Call

About an hour before the blowout, Vidrine told BP onshore drilling engineer Mark Hafle in a phone call that the test results showed pressure on the drill pipe and zero pressure on an additional pipe, called a kill line.

Hafle told Vidrine that “you can’t have pressure on the drill pipe and zero pressure on the kill line in a test that’s properly lined up,” Barnhill said. While this indicated the test was unsuccessful, Vidrine did not stop work and instructed the rig to proceed with operations, Barnhill testified.

Vidrine apparently never told the Transocean drilling crew about the 8:52 p.m. call with Hafle, Barnhill said.

Barnhill doesn’t believe that supervisors intentionally ignored what he thought was an “inconclusive” negative test, he said under cross-examination by plaintiffs’ attorney Paul Sterbcow.

“I really don’t believe these guys would have said ’damn the torpedoes’” if they didn’t believe they had correctly interpreted the negative test, Barnhill said.

Criminal Charges

Vidrine and Hafle have declined to testify, invoking their Fifth Amendment right. Vidrine and another BP site manager, Robert Kaluza, were indicted on federal charges of manslaughter, have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to go to trial next January.

BP pleaded guilty to 14 federal charges, including 12 felonies, and admitted it misinterpreted a critical pressure test just before the explosion. It agreed to pay $4 billion in fines and penalties, plus $525 million to settle a Securities and Exchange Commission claim that the company underestimated the size of the spill.

BP, in settling the criminal prosecution, didn’t resolve the lawsuit seeking civil Clean Water Act fines.

Transocean pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor Clean Water Act violation and agreed to pay $1.4 billion, including $400 million in criminal penalties.

The case is In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, 10-md-02179, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).

Post to be found at:

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/BP-Loses-Bid-to-Bar-GrossNegligence-Finding-in-Spill-Trial-2013-03-19/

Little-known Code Could Have a Major Impact on Polar Environments - National Geographic Society

Posted -  Claire Christian of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition in Ocean Views on March 18, 2013 reprinted by National Geographic Society

Scientists recently identified multiple new trans-Arctic shipping routes that will be accessible to non-ice-strengthened vessels in just a few decades., Given that such routes would have been unimaginable a few decades ago, this research is yet another sobering reminder of the massive changes that anthropogenic climate change has caused. At the other end of the world, parts of the Antarctic are also warming rapidly, allowing vessels to venture into uncharted areas and extending the season where travel is possible. Ensuring that these changes do not add stress to polar ecosystems already suffering from climate change (or put human lives at risk) is an urgent issue.

This week, at a meeting in London, delegates from countries all over the world will meet to discuss international shipping regulations, including critical environmental protections for polar regions. The meeting is officially known as the 57^th session of the Design and Equipment Sub-Committee (called DE 57) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), an international body that is responsible for developing global regulations for vessels and shipping activities. From reading the title, you can probably get an inkling about why you’ve probably never heard of this meeting or probably even the IMO – it doesn’t sound very exciting or newsworthy. Much of what it tackles is highly technical, relating to the minute details of operating vessels and keeping people safe at sea. However, DE has also been given the critically important task of developing a special set of regulations for ships that will sail in the Arctic and the Antarctic, commonly known as the Polar Code.
This Polar Code represents a phenomenal opportunity to establish environmental safeguards for the poles before ship traffic increases. Taking this precautionary approach to the expansion of activity at the poles means that instead of reacting to environmental damage (for example from an oil spill, waste discharge from ships, or emissions of harmful particulate matter), we can (theoretically) prevent damage from happening. Imposing environmental regulations on commercial sectors often presents a tough challenge for governments. The fact that shipping is already subject to regulations makes the prospect of additional, preventive rules for distant seas a tough sell. As polar shipping traffic grows, however, it will become even more difficult to put new regulations in place since companies will not want to make major changes to their operations. Better to take action now and use scientific information to craft sensible guidelines that will minimize the risk of environmental harm to these sensitive but dangerous areas.
So what makes the polar regions deserving of additional protections? Though the Arctic and the Antarctic are different, they share some important characteristics that make them more vulnerable than warmer areas. Perhaps most important, pollutants – everything from oil to sewage to food waste – breaks down much more slowly in polar waters, causing a greater impact on ecosystems. Following this, there are large congregations of wildlife in relatively small areas at both poles, so one pollution incident can impact huge numbers of animals. As climate warms, ice-dependent polar species will also be threatened by warming temperatures. But as fragile as the poles might be in some respects, they are incredibly tough in others. Whether it’s ice or uncharted waters, the polar regions throw up huge obstacles for human activities, even in our modern era. The combination of dangerous conditions and fragile ecology means that even commonplace activities have potentially enormous environmental ramifications.
The rationale for a Polar Code is clear, and many countries have agreed that it is necessary. However, despite recognition of its importance and of the rapid changes already occurring at the poles, development of the Polar Code has been lagging. In part 2 of this post, I’ll describe some of the obstacles to protecting polar waters. 

Post to be found at:
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/18/little-known-code-could-have-a-major-impact-on-polar-environments/

More inspections, tougher pollution penalties for oil tanker traffic - National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc

Posted March 19, 2013 - By Dene Moore, Canadian Press - National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc

The federal government announced changes to improve oil tanker safety off Canadian coasts, and shore up support for several controversial projects that would increase oil exports from British Columbia.
The changes include some new measures — administrative penalties for polluters and mandatory marine response plans for oil terminal operators — and increased frequency for measures already in place, such as annual inspections for all tankers and offshore aerial surveillance.
They also include a review by a panel of experts and a promise of future improvements, which was dismissed as "greenwashing" by the Council of Canadians, which opposes proposed pipeline projects that would deliver oil from Alberta to the B.C. coast for shipping overseas.
"Our government listens to the people ... What we're announcing today is a result of our listening to British Columbians and responding to their concerns," Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said at a news conference on the deck of Port of Metro Vancouver, against a backdrop of tankers and shipping vessels in Burrard Inlet.
Without naming any specific project, Oliver reiterated that if Canada is to benefit from its resource potential, products must reach Asia and the rest of the world.
"We have an opportunity to ensure that our products, particularly oil and liquefied natural gas, reach world markets and command world prices," Oliver said. "Our government knows that to be an energy superpower, we need a world-class safety system for our waters."
In Ottawa, the Conservatives tabled legislation making it mandatory for the operators of oil handling facilities to submit spill response plans to the government, and added additional monetary penalties for marine polluters.
Oliver named an expert panel on tanker safety to review the current regime. A report on regulations south of the 60th parallel is due this fall, and a report on Arctic shipping a year later.
The minister said the government will also review the oil pollution liability regime now in place, to determine if $1.3 billion currently available in various funds is sufficient to ensure Canadian taxpayers don't end up footing the bill for a spill.
Ottawa will also conduct scientific research into the behaviour of diluted bitumen, the molasses-like oil produced in the oil sands that pipeline opponents argue sinks to the floor of the ocean and cannot be cleaned up.
And the federal government will designate Kitimat — the tanker port terminus of the Northern Gateway project — as a public port, offering better traffic control and vessel safety. Other ports may also be brought under the control of a port authority, reversing a trend by consecutive governments toward divesting regional ports.
The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker port would see an increase of about 250 tankers a year into Kitimat. The proposed doubling of Kinder Morgan's existing TransMountain pipeline would increase vessel traffic to Port Metro Vancouver by about 400 annually.
Several pipeline opponents immediately dismissed the changes.
"The Harper government is trying to find a way to ignore public opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline while making it look like they're listening, using 'world-class' greenwashing," Maryam Adrangi, of the Council of Canadians, said in an email.
Darcy Dobell, vice-president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada's Pacific region, said there are no regulations that would change her mind on the Northern Gateway project.
"It doesn't address our fundamental concern. Our concern has never been about the regulations needing tightening. Our concern is that the Great Bear Rainforest is no place for oil pipelines or oil tankers, at all," she said.
Darryl Anderson, whose Wave Point Consulting has studied marine safety worldwide, said the changes are a start but more remains to be done.
"This addresses some of the issues," Anderson said. "It's got to be backed up with resources."
Officials said $120 million has been earmarked over the next five years for the changes. But critics point out the Canadian Coast Guard and ocean research have been cut by more than that in recent budgets.
"First, the Conservatives tried to ram through the Northern Gateway project without listening to British Columbians," said Peter Julian, the federal NDP's natural resources critic. "Now they are trying to back-paddle with a lacklustre spill plan that doesn't even begin to address the Conservative cuts to spill prevention."
The B.C. government has said a "world-class" oil spill response plan is one of five conditions that will have to be in place before the province will support the Northern Gateway, along with First Nations involvement and a "fair share" of revenues.
B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake said the province is currently conducting a study of marine oil spill safety and when it's done, will know whether the federal changes meet the condition.
"We haven't seen the details but, on first impressions, I would say this is a very positive response to the premier's call for higher standards," Lake said.
Source: The Canadian Press

Post found at:
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/03/19/more-inspections-tougher-pollution-penalties-for-oil-tanker-traffic/?__lsa=3f29-40fb

Dealing with maritime “garbage” - Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide

Posted March 19, 2013 -  Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide

The sea is not a gigantic dustbin, and recent generations of seafarers, just like people who live ashore, have learned to treat the marine environment with greater respect. Regulations, in the shape of the Marine Pollution Convention, with special sections dealing with what and where anything can be disposed of at sea, have been implemented and are enforced. And it is fair to point out that a very large proportion of the garbage that still illegally enters the sea comes from landside sources, even though ships are still sometimes blamed!
Ships, of course, don’t have the facility of garbage collections while they are at sea and will depend upon shore authorities providing this service when they are in port, so what can they do to mitigate the problem? Like shore-side organizations, those aboard ship will try hard to separate and segregate their “recyclables”, but also they will try hard to minimize the waste materials left from their consumable stores, provisions and the like. Well- found ships will also have installed a certain amount of helpful equipment, in the shape of compactors that can be used to squash tins and boxes into a small volume for ease of storage and collection and incinerators that can be used to dispose of anything that can be burned.
There is also much that can be done, in collaboration with those selling stores for ships, to ensure that packaging is not too bulky and can be easily disposed of in the ship’s systems. Minimizing the volume of garbage that has to be stored and landed is a useful strategy for reducing costs and contributing to the reduction of wastes in general. Much will also depend on the ports which need to ensure that they have in place adequate reception facilities that ships will find convenient to use. Having to struggle down half a mile of quay to the nearest garbage reception facility is not exactly encouraging for ships’ crews. There are also serious quarantine issues with the landing of ship’s garbage, for instance, with the proper disposal of food waste or wood dunnage and packaging that ports need to deal with.
The amount of garbage produced by a ship depends heavily on the number of people aboard her. While cargo ships have small crews, generating little more than that of a few households ashore, passenger vessels, by contrast, need to have well ordered and often highly sophisticated systems for dealing with ship-generated wastes. In a large cruise ship, hundreds of tons of wastes are generated in addition to the solid wastes and “grey water” produced by the ship sewage and domestic water systems.
Aboard such vessels, the treatment of wastes will be approached on an industrial scale, with specialized equipment sorting, compacting, storing and incinerating all the ship’s garbage, so that what is landed is easily dealt with by mechanical handling systems during the fast turn-round in port. Garbage treatment will occupy a whole department on board ship, and the development of this specialised equipment has gone hand in hand with the design of large cruise ships, with their thousands of passengers.
Source: BIMCO

Post to be found at:
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/News.aspx?ElementId=f095b460-9241-4233-b88a-11e3cc9af538&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily

Canadian Arctic Energy Development a Possibiltiy, Not a Given - Maritime Professional

Posted - March 19, 2013 - Maritime Professional

These conclusions are based on an ongoing study within the international research programme 'Geopolitics of the High North'.
Higher hydrocarbon price levels and new technology, coupled with optimistic resource appraisals at the turn of the millennium, have made the Canadian Arctic an attractive prospect for oil and gas multinationals. It is estimated that ‘approximately 35% of Canada’s remaining marketable resources of natural gas and 37% of remaining recoverable crude oil is in Northern Canada’.

Of particular interest are the offshore resources present in the Canadian part of the Beaufort Sea, located just off the coast of the Northwest Territories. While this region of Canada is attracting the interests of a range of new players, both commercial and political, interest on its own is not sufficient for any rapid development to take place. As this article will outline, there are several factors that may restrict the viability of Canadian Arctic oil and gas despite its ostensible opportunities.

Historic Development
Canadian Arctic oil and gas development started with the discovery of the Norman Wells oil field in 1920, but onshore activity in the region did not intensify until oil was found in 1968 across the border at Prudhoe Bay in Alaska. In this period offshore exploration in the Beaufort Sea also intensified. A total of 86 wells were drilled from 1972 until 1989; an impressive number given the harsh conditions and uncertain commercial prospects of the area. However, although several Canadian companies had been active in promoting the petroleum potential of the Beaufort Sea, the Arctic was mostly abandoned from the mid 80s as oil prices fell and transportation of any findings became problematic.

Renewed Interest in the Arctic
Lease sale rounds were conducted in 2002 and 2004 by the Canadian federal government, which is responsible for offshore development of the Beaufort Sea. Chevron Oil Company acquired leases in the Mackenzie Delta for a relatively small fee during that time, while in 2007 Imperial Oil won the bid for a larger area further offshore. BP did the same in 2008, with Chevron following suit in 2010. As the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico began to unravel in 2010, Canadian authorities imposed a halt on all Arctic drilling until the National Energy Board (NEB) had conducted an Arctic Offshore Drilling Review. Released in December 2011, the Review introduced a more stringent set of guidelines to which any company operating in the region would need to adhere. Beyond these rigorous operating standards, however, three additional challenges have the potential to hinder further lease development in the Canadian Arctic.

1. Price Levels
The Canadian Arctic, particularly the Mackenzie Valley Delta and adjacent offshore fields in the Beaufort Sea, is expected largely to contain natural gas deposits. The Henry Hub natural gas spot price for the North American market, however, has seen a remarkable shift the last decade. Following the relatively low level of USD2.36 per MMBtu of natural gas in December 1999, prices rose and alternated between USD4.47 and USD13.42 from late 2002 to 2009. In 2010, a relatively sudden boom in domestic shale gas production led the United States to embark on a path to self-sufficiency in natural gas. Price levels have dropped accordingly. Between 2010 and 2011, gas cost around USD4 per MMBtu, while in 2012 it hung between USD1.95 (April) and USD3.54 (December). This has led to questions concerning the commercial viability of Canadian Arctic gas projects, in which the cost of extraction often does not warrant activity.

2. Infrastructure
Any development of the Canadian Beaufort Sea is dependent on finding viable options for transportation for extracted resources. Canada never built a pipeline equivalent to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System in the United States, as indigenous and environmental concerns halted the process of building a comparable gas pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley in the 1970s. Stretching from the Northwest Territories of Canada to North American gas markets, the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline would cover roughly 743 miles of Canadian territory to connect to the existing continental gas pipeline system. However, the future of the project remains uncertain: current North American gas prices do not warrant investment and permits are still pending. Indeed, it is fair to say that Canada’s Mackenzie Valley Pipeline faces considerable economic and political challenges and therefore acts as barrier to investments in Canadian Arctic gas production. LNG facilities onshore have been mentioned as an alternative, but current price levels also render this option uncertain.

3. Regional and Federal Interests
At the regional level, the Northwest Territories’ interests in offshore development of the Beaufort Sea do not constitute a particularly strong driver in themselves. The region is not heavily dependent on revenues from oil and gas given that current production levels remain low. Additionally, local communities in the region have focused extensively on developing mineral deposits instead of oil and gas. With the success of the diamond mines in the Northwest Territories, sentiment tends to favor mineral extraction, which is perceived to provide greater direct benefits in terms of revenues and labor.
Given that regional interests do not constitute a strong driver for further expansion in the Beaufort Sea, the decision to open for offshore lease sales and approve exploratory drillings is more closely linked to federal interests in Ottawa. These interests play into the fact that Canada is emerging as an international heavyweight in oil and gas production due to the presence of tar sands in Alberta and petroleum production in the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland. A federal push to develop costly and remote Arctic gas fields is therefore not inevitable, since Canada is not dependent on these resources for domestic energy supply. Although players at both the regional and federal levels openly favor oil and gas development in the Arctic, there is less leveraging of these interests in comparison to other parts of the Arctic in which oil and gas discussions are taking place.

Conclusion
By contrast to oil and gas development in the European Arctic and other areas of North America, development in the Canadian Arctic appears less defined in terms of commercial viability. Moreover, regional and federal-level interests are vocalized less strongly than those encountered in neighboring Alaska. Should large quantities of recoverable oil or gas be discovered in the near future, this situation may change rapidly. Nonetheless, the challenges described above – relating to price levels, transportation, and a lack of national interest – will continue to weigh upon development in the short to medium-term. It is reasonable to conclude that development of the Canadian Arctic is still only a possibility and not a given, even in the context of strong and increasing commercial and political interest.
For more information click here. 

Post to be found at:
http://www.maritimeprofessional.com/News/352643.aspx

Maritime Spatial Planning Directive needs strong environmental commitment - Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide

Posted - March 15, 2013 -  Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide

Environmental NGOs have welcomed the proposal for a Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and Coastal Management as a tool to help achieve sustainable maritime development, but want to ensure that crucial environmental commitments are not traded off against sectoral ones in the process. The proposed Directive includes Good Environmental Status among its objectives alongside several sectoral objectives from other policy areas, including energy, fisheries and transport.
Seas At Risk, Birdlife International, WWF and the North Sea Foundation welcome the requirements for the coordination between countries, the application of the ecosystem approach and the use of strategic environmental assessment and public consultation.
Monica Verbeek, Executive Director of Seas At Risk said: “With the current intensive use of the coastal zone and the projected Blue Growth, a more coordinated and sustainable approach to how our oceans are used is indeed essential. But maritime spatial planning is not merely about allocating space, making trade-offs and reducing conflicts. It should provide a long term vision that helps guide today’s decisions to ensure that our seas are restored to good environmental status in 2020. ”
Maritime Spatial Planning should safeguard the environmental goals set by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directives – these should not be diluted by trade-offs with sectoral objectives. Work on the MSP Directive should in particular not further delay the designation and management of ecologically coherent networks of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
Johanna Karhu, Marine and Fisheries Policy Officer at BirdLife Europe said: “Effective maritime planning and coastal management should ensure that the right activities take place in the right places and at the right times, but this will only be achieved if the environment is placed at the centre of these processes. Any EU action in these areas must have the health of the ecosystem, which supports so much economic development, at its heart.”
Source: Seas At Risk

Post to be found at:
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/News.aspx?ElementId=5dd2376d-276f-445d-9d2f-9a52d914305e&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily

Meeting marine fuel sulfur targets could up carbon emissions - MarineLog

Posted March 11, 2013 - MarineLog

A report by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited and commissioned by the U.K. Chamber of Shipping indicates that hitting 2015 sulfur emission targets could increase carbon emissions and cause the loss of 2,000 jobs.
Although the U.K. Chamber and the shipping operators agree that there is a need to reduce sulfur emissions from shipping for both environmental and health reasons, the speed with which reduction targets must be met has been causing operators concern for some time.
The report, commissioned by the U.K. Chamber on behalf of several North Sea and Western Channel shipping operators, provides evidence on the impact of reducing sulfur from ships' emissions before the current deadline of 2015.
The report shows that among the key impacts of hitting the 2015 sulfur reduction targets would be:

• much more freight moved by road, rather than sea – increasing carbon emissions and causing more road congestion
• up to 2,000 jobs put at risk in maritime engineering, navigation, catering, customer services, and other areas
• an increase of 2.8 p per liter for the cost of road diesel
• significant increases (up to 29 percent in some cases) in the cost of passenger and container route ticket prices.

The U.K. Chamber says the root of problem lies in the cost – financial and environmental – of low-sulfur fuel. Ships have three options:

• use low sulfur fuel - which would cost at least $300 per tonne more than the current heavy fuel oil
• fit a sulfur "scrubber" to their ships – the report states that this technology to reduce sulfur from heavy fuel oil on board the ship itself is not yet sufficiently proven for ship owners to fit them with confidence before the 2015 targets
• use Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) as fuel – which the report sees as feasible for newbuild ships but not appropriate for most of the existing U.K. fleet.

For those that cannot yet use LNG, or are not willing to invest in as-yet unproven scrubber technology, the impact of the low sulfur fuel cost is huge. To cope with the major increase, operators of sea routes around the U.K. would need to increase ticket prices – by up to 20 percent for passengers and up to 29 percent for freight.
This will threaten the viability of some routes, forcing them to reduce or even shut down altogether. In turn, this would threaten more than 2,000 jobs – related to those routes – in the U.K. and Europe in maritime engineering, navigation, catering, customer services, cleaning and administration.
The impact of closing sea routes would be felt throughout the manufacturing sectors too, as the cost of moving goods will increase - making the U.K/ a less competitive and more expensive place to base internationally owned businesses.
Increased ticket prices for sea passage in turn could lead to a significant shift in the way freight is transported – a move to shorter sea passage and increased transport by road. Shipping is the lowest carbon form of mass transport, so a shift to greater road freight also has an environmental cost in terms of increased carbon emissions.
Similarly, both the refining process needed to create low sulfur fuel and the power needed to run on board sulfur scrubbers have their own cost in terms of carbon emissions.
David Balston, Director of Safety and Environment at the U.K. Chamber of Shipping, said:
"We fully support the need to reduce sulfur emissions from ships – but we are particularly concerned that many routes will become non viable and for those vessels operating on them we seek transitional arrangements, including very tight time limited exemptions to allow technology to catch up and provide a realistic alternative.
"We must protect our maritime jobs and the environment – this report shows these regulations do neither.
"The wider impact is hard to quantify – but these regulations will make the U.K. less competitive, making us a less attractive country for international investors - at the worst possible time for the U.K. economy."
The entire report can be downloaded HERE

Post to be found at:
http://marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3732:meeting-marine-fuel-sulfur-deadlines-could-increase-carbon-emissions&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=195

Get Your Cruise On Now, Before Fuel Costs Double - AOLEnergy.com

Posted - By Jared Anderson - Published: March 8, 2013 - AOLEnergy.com

Not surprisingly, fuel makes up a significant portion of a cruise ship's operating budget - about $1 million for a 10 day trip - but due to tighter maritime industry emissions regulations, these costs are sharply rising.Cruise ships are often described as floating hotels, but they are also floating power plants. "This ship is a diesel-electric plant," Richard Pruitt, Associate Vice President of Safety and Environmental Stewardship at Royal Caribbean recently told a group of journalists during a tour of the "Explorer of the Seas," at the Cape Liberty Cruise Port in Beyonne, New Jersey.

The ship is powered by 6 V12 diesel engines made in Finland by Wartsila that are connected to 6 12.6 MW electrical generators manufactured by Swiss company ABB. The ship was "bunkering" or taking on 1,300 tons of fuel during the tour. The Explorer holds two types of marine fuel because US and international law dictate that low sulfur fuel oil must be burned within 200 nautical miles of member-country shorelines, a boundary known as the Emissions Control Area established by the International Maritime Organization.

"IMO – the International Maritime Organization – is the United Nations specialized agency with responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships," according to organization's website.

New air pollution regulations took effect in August, 2012 that impact cruise ships, and Royal Caribbean "had problems getting compliant fuel in the Pacific Northwest," Pruitt told AOL Energy. Dealing with the emissions issue is currently his greatest challenge, he said.

The IMO regulations specifically concern sulfur content, but sulfur is only one of many specifications that need to be met for a ship's engines to run safely and efficiently. The low sulfur fuel grade offered by a regional supplier may not meet the specifications required by the engine configuration on a given class of ships.

Additionally, space comes at a premium on ships and the need to carry multiple grades of fuel means multiple tanks must compete for precious square feet.

Pruitt thinks the solution could lie in scrubbers, much like those used by utilities operating coal-fired power plants. He said two ships experimenting with them now "show great promise."

But the regulations are scheduled to tighten even more from less than 1% sulfur fuel now to below 0.1%, which could double fuel costs inside the ECA, according to Pruitt. Scrubbers will likely be required to some extent, he said, because the sulfur content of fuel can only be reduced so much. In order to comply with regulations, some contaminants may need to be scrubbed out after the fuel is burned.

The dilemma is similar to that faced by utilities up against expensive retrofits needed to bring their fleets of coal-fired power plants within compliance. The difference is that utilities have been able to switch to cleaner burning - and currently cheaper - natural gas, while shipping interests don't have that luxury.
Post to be found at:
http://energy.aol.com/2013/03/08/get-your-cruise-on-now-before-fuel-costs-double/

Royal Caribbean discusses new cruise ship emission regulation challenges - Royal Caribbean Blog

Posted - March 8, 2013 -   Royal Caribbean Blog

Royal Caribbean Associate Vice President of Safety and Environmental Stewardship, Richard Pruitt, talked to a group of reporters during a tour of Explorer of the Seas about the challenges the cruise line is facing in powering their ships in light of new maritime industry emissions regulations.
Explorer of the Seas is powered by  6 V12 diesel engines that are connected to 6 12.6 MW electrical generators. The ship was taking on 1,300 tons of fuel during the tour. The Explorer holds two types of marine fuel because US and international law dictate that low sulfur fuel oil must be burned within 200 nautical miles of member-country shorelines, a boundary known as the Emissions Control Area established by the International Maritime Organization.
New air pollution regulations took effect last August have had a direct impact on cruise ships, and Royal Caribbean "had problems getting compliant fuel in the Pacific Northwest," Pruitt said. Dealing with the emissions issue is currently his greatest challenge, he added.
Compounding the problem is that space aboard a cruise ship is at a premium and the need to carry multiple types of fuel means multiple tanks must compete for precious space.
Pruitt thinks the solution could lie in scrubbers, much like those used by utilities operating coal-fired power plants. He said two ships experimenting with them now "show great promise."
But the regulations are scheduled to tighten even more from less than 1% sulfur fuel now to below 0.1%, which could double fuel costs inside the ECA, according to Pruitt. Scrubbers will likely be required to some extent, he said, because the sulfur content of fuel can only be reduced so much. In order to comply with regulations, some contaminants may need to be scrubbed out after the fuel is burned.

Post to be found at:
http://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/2013/03/08/royal-caribbean-discusses-new-cruise-ship-emission-regulation-challenges