Navigation standards slammed - Tanker Operator

More documents

Recommendations

Info

p30-34.qxd 09/05/2006 12:01 Page 5 TECHNOLOGY EMISSIONS ed during bunkering, so de-bunkering becomes a very remote risk with the significant financial benefits attached. A single bad bunker avoided can yield a significant financial benefit. Blend on Board? Also included is a preview of blending on board. Razaghi Meyer said it believed that blending on board can be simpler, more affordable and more effective than many people believe. Jon Watson, technical manager told TankerOperator that he had spoken with the UK's Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) who advised that this system would be acceptable as an electronic journal as an alternative to the oil record book. He also said that he had discussed with the MCA the blending approach on board ship. Both the conventional method and blending on board ship were said to be not a problem. The vessel would probably need to be registered as a 'local supplier' and then could blend fuel on board. The conventional approach is to blend a batch of fuel, store it and then use it when entering a SECA. Watson said that this method "doesn't seem to give much advantage over a conventional dual fuel approach, but the option of blend to engine is much more favourable, as it is very affordable and requires only some modifications to the engine fuel module where much of the equipment required already exists". This approach would mean only blending so much fuel as is needed because it is blended to the high pressure circuit and is burnt as soon as produced, minimising stability and compatibility problems. The same system could also be used in a global sea area to blend for economy. That is to maximise the HFO content consistent with the maximum allowable temperature, for example by bunkering 500 cSt instead of 380 cSt and then blending back to an intermediate fuel. Watson continued by saying that it had been suggested that by blending to 1.5% sulphur, some of the lubrication problems might be mitigated. He said he hoped to Low-sulphur fuel additive extends engine life Switching to low-sulphur fuel when a vessel enters a designated SECA can help meet the new IMO MARPOL regulations. However, using low-sulphur fuel can cause excessive engine part wear. To help combat this, Drew Marine, a business group of Ashland Specialty Chemical has introduced AMERGY® XLS fuel conditioner specifically for lowsulphur fuels. "Frequent use of low-sulphur fuels can result in accelerated wear in fuel pumps, injectors and other engine components," said Nels Hendrickson, marketing vice president, Drew Marine. "Not only does AMERGY XLS fuel conditioner provide added lubrication, it also helps to maintain clean fuel injectors and fuel stability during storage," he claimed. The fuel conditioner contains a highly effective fuel lubricant that minimises metal wear and extends the life of fuel system components. Adding the fuel conditioner to the fuel oil can provide substantial savings to shipowners by reducing maintenance and spare parts costs, Drew claimed. • develop this option further. He also claimed that he had simplified this approach to bunkering, which now hinges on three basic assumptions: • The supplier will provide the certificate of analysis for the fuel. • This will be the correct certificate for that fuel. • Any changes detected in the measured values will show that fuel quality has changed. • If no changes are detected in the density and viscosity, then the suppliers certificate of analysis is valid for the fuel. The last item mentioned is the fundamental assumption made during bunkering and which must be measured by analysing fuel quality in a database. For example, INtegrity is very good at determining if the fuel is ISO 8217 1995 compliant because it measures the density and viscosity. According to a presentation by Lintec at SYBCON 2004, 6% of fuels are off-spec due to density, 7% for viscosity and just 0.7% for other reasons. Thus simply by measuring density and viscosity during bunkering there is a very good chance that if the density and viscosity are within ISO 8217 limits, then the fuel is ISO 8217 compliant. This assumption would only be misguided in the 0.7% of fuels where other parameters are off-spec. In other words, during bunkering there is a 13.7% chance, taking this data, that the fuel bunkered will not be ISO 8217 compliant but by using the Integrity system there is only a 0.7% chance, Watson claimed. INtegrity does not look at limits but at fuel quality change. This is because under MARPOL an exact density and exact percentage of sulphur is required and these properties have to be measured in a laboratory. Therefore, the system looks at the density and viscosity and compares these with the supplier's certificate of analysis to detect change. Whether the certificate of analysis is a true reflection of the bunkers depends on how accurately INtegrity can confirm if the certificate is valid or invalid. If valid then the sulphur content is as the certificate. ...the system looks at the density and viscosity and compares these with the supplier’s certificate of analysis to detect change. As with ISO 8217 compliance validation, there will be exceptions where the density and viscosity do not change but other properties will. The magnitude of this change can be determined from analysing fuel quality and comparing the original supplier's certificate of analysis with the analysis of the commercial sample taken during bunkering. Any individual operator can make this assessment based on their own records of fuel quality. They simply need to identify in how many bunker operations there is no measurable difference between the density and viscosity noted in the original certificate and the commercial sample analysis and note where the sulphur has changed from the exact value quoted or other properties have changed beyond the ISO 8217 acceptable limits. During bunkering, this is a real time measure of compliance. However, it does not replace the need for commercial sample analysis. Its real value is in detecting problems as the fuel is flowing allowing operators to cease bunkering and take remedial action. The alternative is to risk more frequent de-bunkerings if the only indication of change comes when the commercial sample analysis is returned. On board vessels the INtegrity system simply looks through the valid certificated properties for the fuels on the vessel to identify the fuel and report the density and sulphur content from the appropriate certificate. That is as the MARPOL system but automated and data logged in much greater detail than would normally be kept in a manual log book. TO TankerOperator May/June 2006 page 34
p35-38.qxd 09/05/2006 12:06 Page 1 TANKER Operator Tanker fires- recalling lessons from Iran-Iraq war* TECHNOLOGY EMERGENCY RESPONSE It is strange that many of the most important lessons from the hundreds of attacks on ships during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war have been forgotten in recent years. Tankers were the preferred target in that conflict and the air-launched weapons in almost daily use caused immense damage. In virtually all cases, explosion and fire were the inevitable outcomes of a missile strike. Today, of course, a major tanker fire is a rare event. When it does happen, however, it is a nightmare for those on board. Their first response is crucial. It can have a decisive influence on the possibilities for successful salvage. It is in this area of first response that many of the lessons of the Iran-Iraq war are so important. They are as relevant today, as they were over two decades ago. One significant lesson for professional salvors was the effectiveness of using firefighting foam in a tactical way - to reduce fire intensity and gain control of even the largest of crude oil fires. Equally, an important lesson for tanker crews was the need to keep moving at all costs, when oil outflow ignites and burns on the surface of the sea. The alternative - allowing the tanker to 'cook' in a lake of burning crude - can have only one outcome: the total destruction of the ship. The lessons from the past can be considered by an examination of two casualties: the missile strike on the Thorshavet in 1984 and the terrorist attack on the Limburg some 18 years later, in 2002. These incidents have several points in common, not least the fact that both resulted from deliberate acts. At the personal level, the Thorshavet was my first experience of a burning tanker. I was fresh from Nautical College and had only recently joined the salvage tug Ribut as second mate. Our tug had received orders to proceed to the assistance of the tanker. We arrived during a December night and manoeuvred close in. Despite the smoke and an impressive fire, there could be no doubt about the cause. A huge hole had been punched into her side. It measured 10 m across and testified to the violence of the missile penetration and detonation. As Ribut began firefighting, I had my first chance to board a burning vessel. The plan was to inject oxblood firefighting foam into the burning tank. Two volunteers were needed to open a manhole for the foam injection; I stepped forward. Everything on the Thorshavet was new and strange to me. The main deck was very hot - pools of water were boiling. The lessons from that particular salvage have stayed with me for over 20 years. I saw how oxblood foam could be used to reduce fire intensity. When steel temperatures are that hot there is no chance of extinguishing a fire. Foam evaporates Lessons are as relevant today as they were two decades ago. almost instantly. Yet it does have a suppressing effect and this gives a casualty 'more life'. It gives the salvage master time to boundary cool and bring those steel temperatures down - hopefully to the point where a full-scale foam attack will kill the main fires. In fact, timing is everything. If the fire is extinguished too early and the surrounding steel is still too hot, there is a serious risk of one or more explosions. This could mean loss of life, total destruction of the vessel and a pollution disaster. Intelligent and defensive use of firefighting foam to reduce fire intensity was important when confronting the Thorshavet fires. Two decades on, it was also important when the part-laden tanker Limburg was attacked by terrorists in October 2002, while off the Yemeni port of Mina al Dabah. An explosive-filled small fishing boat rammed this 299,364 dwt tanker as the tug Riyan was helping to moor her at Ash Shihr Terminal, four miles offshore. The resulting explosion tore through the VLCC's double hull at the waterline. A large fire developed as burning crude oil flowed into the sea. The conflagration heated the slicks and encouraged them to spread, in turn intensifying the fires on the surface of the sea. Limburg had a part cargo of 65,000 tonnes of oil (with No. 2 centre and Nos. 4 port and starboard loaded). The terrorists' boat scored a direct hit on the laden No. 4 starboard tank. Riyan immediately brought her fire monitors into action. Many questions SvitzerWijsmuller obtained a Lloyd's Form (LOF) and I was appointed salvage master for the tanker. As always, many questions passed through my mind on hearing that this casualty was a burning tanker: TankerOperator May/June 2006 page 35 • Was the vessel laden? • What was the cargo - crude or products? • Where was the casualty and how far from the coast was she? • Was the vessel maintaining speed? • How close was the nearest tug? • Was the crew still on board? • How many tanks were involved in the fire? • Was the engine room undamaged? Gradually, a clearer picture of what had happened began to emerge. It became apparent that the 10 men working forward when the attack took place had a very narrow escape. Dense smoke and flames had prevented them moving aft, to relative safety. They were marooned by the fire. At this time the tanker was moving slow astern and this pushed smoke and flames forward. Some of those trapped decided to jump into the sea. In effect, they were jumping into more danger. The Limburg was part-laden and, therefore, was very high in the water. They jumped from a height of around 20 m. One man was wearing a firesuit and this soon filled, drowning him. As for the others, they soon found themselves threatened when patches of burning oil were swept towards them as their vessel continued astern. Fortunately, they were saved by one of our pilots, who was in an inflatable close
Page 1 and 2: p1-5.qxd 09/05/2006 09:17 Page 1 TA
Page 3 and 4: p1-5.qxd 09/05/2006 09:18 Page 3 Be
Page 5 and 6: p1-5.qxd 09/05/2006 09:19 Page 5 Gl
Page 7 and 8: p7-14.qxd 09/05/2006 10:10 Page 1 G
Page 9 and 10: p7-14.qxd 09/05/2006 10:12 Page 3 T
Page 11 and 12: p7-14.qxd 09/05/2006 10:13 Page 5 S
Page 13 and 14: p7-14.qxd 09/05/2006 10:16 Page 7 P
Page 15 and 16: p15-19.qxd 09/05/2006 10:34 Page 1
Page 25 and 26: p25.qxd 09/05/2006 11:03 Page 1 TEC
Page 33: p30-34.qxd 09/05/2006 12:01 Page 4

Navigation standards slammed - Tanker Operator

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?