Features: - Tanker Operator

TECHNOLOGY – EMERGENCY RESPONSE
A few weeks after the SKS Satilla
operation, in April 2009, SMIT responded to
an emergency involving the chemical/products
tanker Constanza M. This vessel had suffered
main engine damage while off Istanbul. The
tanker was redelivered at Aliaga, Turkey,
within the week.
Some casualties are more complex. The
40,057 dwt chemical/products tanker Maria
M, fell into that category. This vessel went
aground off Gothenburg in mid-July 2009,
while laden with gasoil. SMIT Salvage
obtained a Lloyd’s Form and mobilised to
Gothenburg. As the team was preparing to
leave Rotterdam, local tugs and equipment
arrived on-scene. An initial diving inspection
revealed damage to the ballast tanks, but
confirmed no leakage of cargo or bunkers.
Calculations indicated that the refloating of
Maria M would require a ship-to-ship transfer
and a lightering tanker was secured. In
addition, two tugs from SMIT’s local partners
supported the salvage effort. Maria M was
refloated seven days after the grounding,
following the transfer of 7,700 tonnes of cargo
to the lightering tanker FD ord Fast. With
the casualty now safely at a lay-by berth in
Gothenburg port, the remaining cargo was
transferred to FD ord Fast and Maria M was
redelivered to her owners.
During the following month, August, another
tanker grounding required SMIT’s services.
This casualty was off an Albanian port. The
6,000 dwt chemical tanker Fetekoz allowed
SMIT’s salvage team to demonstrate just how
fast a successful outcome can be achieved.
Fetekoz was refloated the day after the
grounding and redelivered within 48 hours.
Engine room fire
A major salvage and firefighting response was
triggered last October, when the 1994-built,
Italian flag Suezmax ECO Africa, 149,258
dwt, reported fire in the engine room while
discharging at a terminal in the Gulf of Suez.
SMIT Salvage received a Lloyd’s Form and a
salvage/firefighting team mobilised from
Rotterdam.
The prospects for a successful response can
be transformed by swift intervention at the local
level. In this case, SMIT Salvage partner Ocean
Marine Egypt deployed an anchor handler and
two local tugs for firefighting and boundary
cooling. The casualty was moved clear of the
SPM and towed to the outer anchorage.
The engine room fire broke out in 5th
October, at a point when cargo discharge was
nearing completion. When the fire was
extinguished, a damage assessment was
undertaken, the engine room was de-watered
and machinery preserved, prior to redelivery.
In many salvage cases, the termination of
Lloyd’s Form is followed by a contract for
additional services. In this instance a followon
contract provided for the discharge of Eco
Africa’s remaining cargo, bunkers and fire
fighting water, together with tank washing,
prior to inspection at a shipyard in the UAE.
The tanker was towed to Fujairah, where this
work was completed, prior to the onward tow
to Dubai Drydocks. The tanker arrived on
16th December.
This casualty was prepared for the tow at
Ain Sukhna Anchorage. The tow to Fujairah
was performed by an anchor handler, with the
behaviour of the tanker on the tow monitored
by a riding crew.
By 23rd November, Eco Africa was at
anchor off Fujairah. Preparations began to
complete the contracted work. In order to
discharge cargo and, at a later stage, perform
tank washing and the discharge of
contaminated water, the salvage team
established a suction/discharge connection on
The Suezmax Eco Africa suffered an engine room fire while discharging at an SPM in the
Gulf of Suez.
40
the system, via the stripping pumps in the
pump room.
The transfer of cargo to a lightering vessel
was completed by 28th November. During the
following 24 hours water that had been
pumped from the engine room to an available
cargo tank (during the Lloyd’s Form
operation) was transferred to two slop tanks
and utilised for tank washing over a four-day
period. Contaminated water was then
discharged to the lightering vessel.
Tanker salvage challenge
Many factors contribute to successful tanker
salvage, including specialised equipment,
human expertise and a well-structured
‘salvage process’. These issues are of great
significance when a serious casualty occurs
and a spill threat arises.
In an emergency, of course, the casualty’s
master must decide whether to abandon or
stay on board. There is then the question of
what countermeasures are available to
improve the situation (which often means
preventing further deterioration, pending
intervention by professional salvors). Modern
ship design is so complex and diverse and the
number of damage scenarios so large, that
there is no substitute for accurate on-scene
assessment, supported by the tools needed to
define the casualty’s true status.
Beyond the ability to perform hull form
analyses and accurate simulations of stability
and strength, the salvor also requires the means
to generate on-going data on the casualty’s
condition as it changes over time. This is why
the Oil Pollution Act 1990, MARPOL and
other regulations place heavy emphasis on the
proper documentation of actual load condition,
together with the ready availability of reliable
and efficient means to analyse damage stability,
damaged longitudinal strength and, of course,
oil spillage.
US Coast Guard (USCG) current thinking
favours prompt receipt by the salvor of the
detailed, accurate information needed to:
Calculate residual hull girder strength,
based on the reported extent of the damage.
Calculate residual stability when
compartments are breached.
Calculate the most favourable offloading,
ballasting or cargo transfer sequences to
improve residual stability, reduce hull
girder stresses and reduce ground reaction.
Calculate bending and shear stresses due to
pinnacle loads from grounding.
The USCG requires owners and operators to
provide sufficient information to the
programme manager (typically class) to
enable these key calculations to be made in a
TANKEROperator June 2010