Tankers PERFORMING

INTERNATIONAL SALVAGE UNION

17 March 2004

Peter M. Swift

US CIF oil price* - USD/bbl

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2000 2001 2002 2003 Max 03

Freight Costs

Fob SpotDubai

*Costs of oil transported from the Persian Gulf to LOOP

Accidental pollution from tankers 1,000 ts

0

10

20

30

40

50

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03

Largest spills since 1990

1991 ABT Summer 260,000 ts

1991 Haven 144,000 ”

1992 Agean Sea 74,000 ”

1992 Katina P 72,000 ”

1993 Braer 85,000 ”

1996 Sea Empress 72,000 ”

1999 Erika 20,000 ”

2002 Prestige 77,000 ”

2003 Tasman Spirit 30,000 ”

Tanker incidents1978-03

0

200

400

600

800

1000

78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Grounded

War

Misc

Hull&Machinery

Fire/Expl

Collision

Source: LMIS, Informa, press, INTERTANKO

Number

Tanker incidents 2003 - 130

12%

25%

24%25%

14%

Collision

Groundings

Hull&machinery: 28

13 engine,6 steer/prop/rudder5 hull5 other

Fire&Expl.

Misc.

.

dw t. Tankers involved

36 below 10,00038 10-29,999 dw t35 30-99,999 dw t17 > 100,000 dw t

Age tankers involved :

24 built 1970s or earlier48 built 1980s43 built 1990s12 built 2000s, 3 unknow n

7 involving pollution of

which Tasman Spirit most serious

Fleet by hullpercentage

622

6074

83

9478

4940

2617

49

0

20

40

60

80

100

1991 1997 End 02 End 03 End 05 End 10

SH* share (%)

DH share (%)

End 05, all tankers

built 1982 and earlier goneEnd 10, all tankers built 1987 and earlier gonetrading beyond 2010 subject to administrations

Port State Control – tankers share of detentions

Port State ControlPercentage of inspected ships detained

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2003 est.2002200120001999199819970%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Tankers

All ships

Oil pollution into the seaMaritime sources

Source: Gesamp

4%

69%

4%

2%

3%

0% 0%

18%

Shipping general

Accidents tankers/barges

Tankers cargo tank washing

Exploration and Production

Coastal Refineries

War related accidents

Leisure Craft

Natural Seeps/others

Tanker: 3%Shippping: 8% of which tanker accidents 2.8%

Tankers PERFORMING

Not complacent. More to do……………

Improved feedback and analysis

Better information sharing

Strengthened partnerships

Port State Control – tanker detentions, reasons

1. Lifesaving appliances (72)2. Certificates and documents (52)3. Fire fighting measures (42)4. Safety of navigation, charts, publications (21)5. MARPOL Annex I – oil filtering equipment (18)6. ISM Code related (11)

These 6 categories above cover about 70% of the 2003 tanker detentions.The remaining includes a vast number of different reasons.

Port State Control – detentions by year of build

Tanker detentions 2002-03 by year of build

11

32

50

105

45

29

1621

40

55

102

57

2427

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

<1970 1971-1975

1976-1980

1981-1985

1986-1990

1991-1995

1996-2002/3

2002

2003

Port State Control – detentions by year of build

Tanker detentions 2003 by year of buildcompared to total tanker fleet

6%

12%

17%

31%

17%

7% 8%7% 8%

13%15%

11%

18%

27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

<1970 1971-1975

1976-1980

1981-1985

1986-1990

1991-1995

1996-2003

tanker detentions

total fleet (1,000 dwt+)

Port State Control – detentions

Port State Control detentions - 2003

156 150

1,760

179

1,574

20

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Tokyo MoU USCG Paris MoU

Num

ber

All ships

Tankers

Port State Control – details of inspections/detentions

PSC Authority Detentions vs. InspectionsAll ships Tankers All ships Tankers All ships Tankers All ships Tankers

No of inspections 22,382 2,671 19,588 2,341 17,379 2,062 16,034 1,666Tokyo MoU No of detentions 1,760 156 1,307 166 1,349 117 1,101 85

Detentions / Inspections Ratio 7.9% 5.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.8% 5.7% 6.9% 5.1%No of inspections 10,518 2,964 10,518 2,964 10,711 2,964 11,767 2,964

USCG No of detentions 179 20 179 23 172 27 193 32Detentions / Inspections Ratio 1.7% 0.7% 1.7% 0.8% 1.6% 0.9% 1.6% 1.1%No of inspections 20,784 3,114 19,771 2,794 18,711 1,719 18,559 2,601

Paris MoU No of detentions 1,574 150 1,576 125 1,706 117 1,764 203Detentions / Inspections Ratio 7.6% 4.8% 8.0% 4.5% 9.1% 6.8% 9.5% 7.8%No of inspections 53,684 8,749 49,877 8,099 46,801 6,745 46,360 7,231

Total No of detentions 3,513 326 3,062 314 3,227 279 3,058 320Members detentions 68 63 67 59Members detentions % 20.9% 20.1% 24.0% 18.4%Detentions / Inspections Ratio 6.5% 3.7% 6.1% 3.9% 6.9% 4.1% 6.6% 4.4%

2000DETENTIONS vs. INSPECTIONS

2003 est. 2002 2001

Tankers PERFORMING

Improved Feedback Mechansims

A new approach to Accident Investigations ?

Involvement of Shipbuilders beyond the One-Year Guarantee Period

Greater use of the Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum

Extension of Common Rules and Goal Based Standards for Newbuildings to Maintenance and Surveys of Ships in Service

Joint development of Industry Guidelines for “Best Practice”

Tankers PERFORMING

Better information sharing

Information sharing between inspection regimes

Cargo information – MSDS et al

Ship’s particulars and records

Ship’s performance (e.g. through expanded EQUASIS)

Enhanced incident reporting (e.g. including CHIRP)

BUT also need to recognise and deal with the impediments, such as recrimination, commercial disadvantaging and criminalisation, and the lack of incentives for openness

Stengthened partnershipsStengthened partnerships

SHIPOWNER

SHIPYARDS

INSURERS

BANKS &INVESTORS

CARGO OWNER

CHARTERER

PORTS & TERMINALS

CLASSSOCIETIES

FLAG STATES

PARTNERSHIP:Working with regulators and legislators

Tankers PERFORMING

More to do

Owners to be better prepared to handle a casualty- More drills, ERS, incident and media handling

And we need governments to deliver

Places of RefugePlaces of RefugeA Solution Waiting to be ImplementedA Solution Waiting to be Implemented

Erika II Package – December 2000Erika II Package – December 2000

Requires Each Member State to Draw up Requires Each Member State to Draw up Emergency Plans for Hosting Ships in Emergency Plans for Hosting Ships in Distress in Places of RefugeDistress in Places of Refuge

Conventions – A STATUS REPORT

CONVENTION :Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS 1996)

RATIFIED BY :Angola, Morocco, Russian Federation, Tonga

EU Transport Council, December 2002: ”ENCOURAGES Member States, as soon as possible, to ratify or accede to the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996”

Conventions – A STATUS REPORT

CONVENTION :

Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances (OPRC-HNS Protocol 2000)

RATIFIED BY :

Ecuador, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Sweden, Uruguay

Conventions – A STATUS REPORT

CONVENTION :Bunkers Convention (2001)

RATIFIED BY :Jamaica, Spain, Tonga

EU Transport Council, December 2002: ”ENCOURAGES Member States, as soon as possible, to ratify or accede to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001”

Conventions – A STATUS REPORT

CONVENTION :MARPOL Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (Sept. 1997)

RATIFIED BY :Bahamas, Bangladesh, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Norway, Panama, Singapore, Spain, Sweden

Europe : 1999/32 (Seriously flawed and now being amended)

Conventions – A STATUS REPORT

CONVENTION :Antifouling Convention (2001)

RATIFIED BY :Antigua & Barbuda, Denmark, Japan, Nigeria, Norway

European Ban on TBT since 1.1.2003 plus encouragement to Member states to ratify AFS Convention

Port Reception Facilities

An International Failure:

- Inadequacy of Reception of Annex I wastes still an issue for Tanker Owners

- States turning to policing measures w/o first providing the solution (Mediterranean aerial surveillance, Baltic oil tagging) – must return to the source of the problem, not end of pipe solutions

A European Concern:

Implementation of Directive not uniform – ports allowed to implement w/o direction from state leading to different interpretation of:

- Capability of ship to reach next port w/o need for discharging waste

- Fee systems increased beyond previous levels

- Over-regulation of facilities causing closures, e.g. Italy

Spain rejects Mangouras appeal

Thank you

www.intertanko.com