Features: - Tanker Operator

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TECHNOLOGY - TANK CLEANING manufacturers were used, but as can be seen, the names of the manufacturers and the specific product names are not disclosed for reasons of confidentiality and also because the objective of the project was not to say that one cleaning chemical manufacturer was better than another, rather that different cleaning chemicals do not behave the same way under the same conditions. Consideration should also be given to the concentration of use of the respective cleaning chemicals, as this will have a direct impact on the total cost of tank cleaning, assuming it was carried out on board a vessel. Results The following results were noted: The results are extremely interesting and very clearly show that not all cleaning chemicals are as efficient as each other under the same conditions. The first and most noticeable observation is that even the best cleaning materials still result in a hydrocarbon failure, which confirms the fact that cleaning zinc silicate from persistent hydrocarbons is indeed very challenging. It is also interesting to note that five out of the top eight performing cleaning chemicals are used at a concentration of less than 1% and four out of the top eight are actually used at a concentration of 0.5% or less. This does not particularly justify the fact that most effective detergents are effective at low concentrations, but it does suggest the same. With this in mind it would be interesting to note whether the products 1, 2 and 3 from Company E performed equally as well at lower concentrations, which would of course make them far more cost effective to the vessel. If one considers that re-circulating a cargo tank with a solution of tank cleaning chemicals will usually require a minimum volume of 10 cu m of liquid to maintain suction on the pump, it is clear that a product used at an active concentration of 0.5% will utilise 50 litres of pure cleaning chemical, whereas a product used at an active Cleaning Chemical Concentration Average Hydrocarbon of use Reading in FTU (LIM spectrometer) Hot water only 645 Company A – Product 1 0.5% 179 Company B – Product 1 0.5% 230 Company E – Product 1 3% 268 Company E – Product 2 3% 280 Company E – Product 3 3% 285 Company C – Product 1 0.4% 320 Company E – Product 4 0.8% 322 Company D – Product 1 0.4% 325 Company C – Product 2 2% 335 Company E – Product 5 3% 352 Company E – Product 6 0.5% 363 Company E – Product 7 3% 370 Company B Product 2 3% 400 Company G – Product 1 0.5% 415 Company E – Product 8 3% 438 Company E – Product 9 3% 450 Company F – Product 1 0.4% 498 Company F – Product 2 3% 530 Company E – Product 10 3% 535 Company E – Product 11 3% Aborted due to excessive foaming Company F – Product 3 3% Aborted due to excessive foaming concentration of 3% will utilise 300 litres of pure cleaning chemical. If this figure is then multiplied by the number of cargo tanks that need cleaning on each vessel and the number of tank cleaning operations carried out on that vessel in a year and the number of vessels in any particular fleet, it is easy to see how quickly the costs of cleaning chemicals alone can run into tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars/euros each year. So clearly the correct choice of tank cleaning chemical for the owners/operators of tankers is extremely important and not one that should be taken without a better understanding of efficiency and the fact that actually, not all cleaning chemicals are the same, even though at first glance, they may appear to be very similar. To close, it is fair to say that while answering a number of points, projects like this also tend to raise many more questions and LIM would be very interested to hear from any parties interested in taking this project further. Of particular note are the following points: 1) The use of the appropriate cleaning chemical for the particular tank cleaning procedure. This project specifically looked at the efficiency of ‘hydrocarbon removers’ on cleaning a hydrocarbon from a zinc silicate matrix, but there are many different cleaning chemicals that are specifically sold for particular tank cleaning jobs and identifying whether these cleaning chemicals are actually suitable for the job is perhaps of equal importance to how efficient they are. 2) The subject of cleaning chemical concentration was touched upon in the main report, with specific reference to the overall cost of any tank cleaning operation. Clearly this is an important factor that could very well be studied further, particularly under the control of a laboratory based project. 3) Washing water temperature is also a very important factor that could have a significant impact on the efficiency of any tank cleaning chemical. Again, this factor would benefit from a laboratory based study under controlled conditions; as opposed to “on-board” experimentation, which from experience tend to be costly and cannot really be expected to produce the same level of certainty in the results as compared to a laboratory based study. TO *This article was written by Guy Johnson, director L&I Maritime (UK) operations@limaritime.com Tel: +44 1909 532 003. 30 TANKER<strong>Operator</strong> November/December 2009
TECHNOLOGY - TANK CLEANING Innovative oil cleaning process introduced This process cleans oily surfaces, such as ship tanks, by being sprayed in an undiluted condition onto the oiled surface. Following a short period, CYTOCLEAN coats the oil and isolates it from the water on the surface of a tank wall. At the end of the process, the water and oil can then be collected separately with the water claimed to be clean enough to be re-circulated, or re-used in the next cleaning cycle without any further treatment being required. The oil can also be reused with any additional treatment. The oiled surface can be cleaned following a single application, Global Concept claimed. No residues remain after the cleaning process. CYTOCLEAN can be used for any type of mineral oil and has been tested and approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Norwegian institute SINTEF. It was also nominated for this year’s Green Ship Technology Award, due to “its impressive results in the cleaning of oiled ship tanks while on voyage” – and was awarded second place. It is a biological and non-toxic product, which is claimed not to harm the environment. It is biologically declinable with a 50% lifespan of only 96 hours. It also does not harm the surface being cleaned. Several shipowners have already tested the process. Costs can be saved as the concept cleans surfaces faster and more effectively than other processes, as no chemicals are used. There are also no costs involved in disposing of hazardous wastes, or in transporting heavy equipment to the site to be cleaned. Following the process, the treated tanks are washed down with water under low pressure. The ensuing oily/water mixture is then pumped into empty containers (IBCs), stowed on deck. After a short while, the clear separation of oil and water inside the IBCs can be seen, Global Concept said. An independent laboratory specialising in German concern Global Concept has developed the CYTOCLEA oil cleaning process. mineral oil has analysed the viscosity, density, water content and sulphur content of a tank both before and after the treatment. Global Concept also produced a material safety data sheet in accordance with EC Directive 91/155/EEC. Specialist cleaning team Global Concept head Klaus Vrey explained that the company had formed what it called a CATCO team, which undertakes the cleaning without the need for additional space on board and without disturbing the daily working regime on the vessel, while it is on voyage. The team is available for consultancy, support and action 24/7. Vrey said that the team offers three levels of support - Environmentally friendly, biological and non-toxic cleanup without producing additional dangerous waste. Minimising costs by complete recycling. Customer orientated, open minded consultancy and support, including an effective cleanup task force at any location. Vrey explained that the time taken to clean a CYTOCLEAN can be used for any type of mineral oil. tank depends on many different factors, but for example for a cargo tank that can be ‘butterworthed’, it would take no more than four times the Butterworth system, plus a maximum of one hour for the CYTOCLEAN contact time. This means that a mid-size cargo tank should be cleaned and ready for loading within four hours. If ballast, heeling, double bottom, or bunker tanks need cleaning, the time used depends on the placement of the tanks on board and also how many frames are involved, etc. For example, a Ballast tank with a capacity of about 300 cu m should not take more than one day to be clean and gas free. All the times are dependant upon the quality of fuel oil and grade of contamination. Thus far, Vrey said that the company had cleaned ballast, heeling, double bottom and bunker tanks. But he explained that there are no tank types that are favourites for CYTOCLEAN process, as it combats all types of mineral oils and hydrocarbons. He also stressed that CYTOCLEAN not only saves time and money but also protects the environment and is the only method of cleaning vessels’ tanks during a voyage without the need to use any heavy equipment, which save costs. Among Global Concept clients thus far are several shiprepair yards and shipmanagement concerns, plus bunker suppliers. TO November/December 2009 TANKER<strong>Operator</strong> 31
Page 1 and 2: TAKEROperator NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 200
Page 3 and 4: Contents 04 06 10 Markets Valuing a
Page 5 and 6: Intershield ® 300 Abrasion resista
Page 7 and 8: INDUSTRY - MARKETS Income Approach
Page 9 and 10: INDUSTRY - INTERTANKO PROFILE Inter
Page 11 and 12: Think local. Act global. Hilanders
Page 13 and 14: INDUSTRY - GIBRALTAR REPORT Photo c
Page 15 and 16: INDUSTRY - GIBRALTAR REPORT “In t
Page 17 and 18: INDUSTRY - GIBRALTAR REPORT among o
Page 19 and 20: INDUSTRY - GIBRALTAR REPORT full se
Page 21 and 22: INDUSTRY - GIBRALTAR REPORT technic
Page 23 and 24: INDUSTRY - BUNKERS Increase in high
Page 25 and 26: INDUSTRY - BUNKERS Low sulphur mari
Page 27 and 28: INDUSTRY - BUNKERS Maximising effic
Page 29 and 30: TECHNOLOGY - TANK CLEANING How effi
Page 31: TECHNOLOGY - TANK CLEANING It was a
Page 35 and 36: TECHNOLOGY - EMISSIONS regulators f
Page 37 and 38: TECHNOLOGY - EMISSIONS closed gaugi
Page 39 and 40: TECHNOLOGY - EMISSIONS IMO global s
Page 41 and 42: TECHNOLOGY - EMISSIONS Allweiler pu
Page 43 and 44: TECHNOLOGY - EMISSIONS To coke or
Page 45 and 46: TECHNOLOGY - NAVAIDS Electronic pas
Page 48 and 49: TECHNOLOGY - NAVAIDS corrections an
Page 50 and 51: TECHNOLOGY - SHIP DESCRIPTION Enhan
Page 52 and 53: TECHNOLOGY - TRAINING SYSTEMS Warsa
Page 54 and 55: TECHNOLOGY - TRAINING SYSTEMS Warsa
Page 56 and 57: www.apmaritime.com/DigitalShip Digi
Page 58: TECHNOLOGY - NEWS Fit a new bow and

Features: - Tanker Operator

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?