Cleaning up Marine AntifoulingThu 29th April 2010IMarEST, London

Introduction and Challenges

Dr Raouf Kattan

Managing Director

Safinah Ltd – www.safinah.co.uk

Graving

Anti-fouling coatings

One of the few areas where the benefits are most readily calculated in energy and monetary terms.

For the owner fuel can account for up to 50-60% of the operating costs of the vessel (depending on price/ship type).

Bulk carrier example

These account for about 64% of the worlds fleet (2009) by Gross tonnage.

80,000dwt as a typical size, consuming about 45t HFO per day to achieve 15kts.

Total underwater area approximately 13,500sqm

Value of the AF

Bunker price $230 per tonne

Total annual fuel bill assuming 80% activity = $3million

$222 m2/year

3 year dry docking means $666 m2/3 years

Typically need 5,400 ltrs of an SPC type Anti fouling

Value per litre $555. Best price at present?

Emissions

In 1994 – world fleet was 39,000 vessels burning about 184 million t of FO, then at a cost of $100/t = $18.4billion p.a.

If no SPC Anti Fouling then would burn 40% more fuel, increase of 72 million t.

That year the North Sea produced 100 million t of crude oil

Current status

NO ORGANOTIN Any more

CONSTANT performance still required

CURRENT SPC technology not yet as good as the TBT

Emission concerns

Cu is banned for small craft in parts of Scandinavia and US West coast ports under pressure.

Fleet performance

HEADLINES in the PRESS– 15 of the worlds biggest ships now have

Sulphur emissions equivalent to the worlds 750 million cars

– As vessel size and speed has increased so the environmental impact of some fleets has worsened.

The route to the present

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Free association

Copper, Mercury, Arsenic

Organotin

Introduced

Organotin

Co-polymers

Introduced

Ablative coatings

Introduced

Copper

Co-polymers

Introduced

New

Technologies

•A clean smooth hull - Resistance to slime - Resistance to roughness - Resistance to fouling - Long lasting

Technology needs

Anti-slime – 15% penalty

Anti-fouling – 40% penalty (75% reached when only 5% of hull is hard fouled).

Predictable performance

What about the propeller?

Technology needs

Shipyard needsNo change to application technology

Minimum impact on shipyard work practices

Use existing application technology and methods

No additional HS&E burden

Over coating intervals of up to 9 months between coats

Minimum number of coats

No VOC penalty

Ability to withstand U/V exposure before immersion (up to 12 months)

Easy to touch up/repair

No additional surface preparation requirements.

-15 degrees C to plus 40 degrees C

80% humidity

Storage stability up to 18 months

Low price (Shipyard)

Ship owner needsEasy to repair

Abrasion resistant/Impact resistant

Should control fouling for up to 60 months, more if possible

Minimise hull roughness

Able to deal with periods of atmospheric exposure,

Available in a variety of colours

Low price

No environmental or H&S penalty

Easy to repair

Compatible with existing application technology

Suitable for bulk supply (up to 500ltr totes)

Should be able to deal with static periods of up to 4 weeks

Should be able to deal with variable speed

Price factors

•Raw material costs - Available factory capacity - Access to technology – competition - Ship prices –• Fuel costs - Exchange rate movements – ship type – ship owner

36 Months

SPC

36 Months

SPC

Price

Performance

Controlled Depletion

Controlled Depletion

Contact LeachingContact Leaching

60 MonthsSPC

60 MonthsSPC

Foul

Release

Foul

Release

Hard

Coatings

Heavy metal free

Price movement

Hybrid schemes to reduce costs

Price pressureTotal Order Book Vs price Index

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Index -

1987 =

100

Price Index

Total order book index

Foul release technology

First 30 years – 107 applications– 2004/2005 – 154 applications

2005 first new building

Now 1 in 10 new builds currently specifying it.

Set backs – Issues with Slime on 1st generation products– Some reports of non-foul release– Practical application problems

Hard coatings

SHC – Standard Hard Coatings

STC – Surface Treatment Coatings

Issues of underwater hull cleaning and invasive species issues:

Demand - size

15,500

16,000

16,500

17,000

17,500

18,000

18,500

19,000

19,500

20,000

DWT

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Years

Ave DWT

Demand - Speed

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

>18kts >14Kts

No of potentialvessels

Market demand – NB and M&R

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009

Paint Ltrs (million t)

58 59 63 64

Supply

90-95% of all vessels still coated with conventional AF

Heavy metal free products now available from one major supplier

FR coatings becoming better and more established but not the panacea all wished for

Hard coatings found a niche

Suppliers

The major paint companies

Barriers to entry not technology but distribution

Customers

The need is there

The HS&E pressure is there

The desire is there

Hull performance monitoring

Fleet performance managers.

The challenge

New/alternative technologies emerging

Nothing yet to really dislodge the current dominant solutions

Broad efficacy

Need for innovation is there

The market is very receptive to new ideas.

Risk factor for new entrants.

Responsible Environmental regulation

Price not a barrier – if the paint works