INTERNATIONAL SHIP-OWNERS ALLIANCE OF CANADA JUNE 4, 2008

INTERNATIONAL SHIP-OWNERS ALLIANCE OF CANADA JUNE 4, 2008
UPDATE ON MAJOR SHIPPING ISSUES JOSEPH ANGELO DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR

INTERTANKO AIR EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE GASES BALLAST WATER RECYCLING OF SHIPS ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS LRIT US PORT SECURITY HUMAN ELEMENT

INTERTANKO INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TANKER OWNERS
A non-profit organization whose aims are: to further the interests of independent tanker owners; to work for safety at sea and the protection of the marine environment; to promote a free and competitive tanker market.

INTERTANKO MISSION Provide Leadership to the Tanker Industry in serving the World with the SAFE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND AND EFFICIENT seaborne transportation of oil, gas and chemical products

INTERTANKO PRIMARY GOAL Lead the CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
of the Tanker Industry’s Performance in striving to achieve the Goals of: ZERO FATALITIES ZERO POLLUTION ZERO DETENTIONS

MEMBERSHIP MEMBERSHIP is open to independent tanker owners and operators of oil and chemical tankers (i.e. non-oil companies and non-state controlled tanker owners) who fulfill the Association's membership criteria. ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP is available to any entity with an interest in the shipping of oil and chemicals.

MORE THAN 80% OF THE INDEPENDENT TANKER FLEET
MEMBERSHIP 270+ MEMBERS 2,800+ TANKERS 230+ MILLION DWT MORE THAN 80% OF THE INDEPENDENT TANKER FLEET 300+ ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

MEMBERSHIP No. members/million dwt No. tankers

SECRETARIAT 24 STAFF MEMBERS IN FOUR OFFICES: 12 – OSLO 10 – LONDON
1 – SINGAPORE 1 – USA STAFF INCLUDES - MANAGING DIRECTOR - GENERAL COUNSEL - TECHNICAL DIRECTOR - DIRECTOR, REGULATORY AFFAIRS - MARINE AND CHEMICAL DIRECTOR

Governance Structure 14 Committees 5 Regional Panels

AIR EMISSIONS SEPT 1997 – IMO adopts ANNEX VI to MARPOL, regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships MAY 2005 – ANNEX VI enters into force internationally (US and Canada currently not party to Annex VI) JULY 2005 – MEPC 53 decides Annex VI should be revised to reduce air emissions from ships

AIR EMISSIONS INTERTANKO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES –
Ensure a solid platform of requirements Be realistic and feasible Seek positive reduction in air emissions from ships Contribute to a long term and predictable regulatory regime Prevent unilateral or regional regulations – IMO standards accepted worldwide

AIR EMISSIONS Proposals focused on air emission standards and abatement equipment Fuel standard was NOT being considered Root cause of air pollution from ships is the use of residual fuels Solution should focus on the root cause of the problem, not the effect of cleaning up the air pollution on the ship after it is created

INTERTANKO SUBMISSION
AIR EMISSIONS INTERTANKO SUBMISSION Distillate fuels with sulphur cap: - From [2010], maximum of 1% sulphur - For engines installed after [2015], maximum of 0.5% sulphur Global sulphur emission control area Revision of checking and monitoring of compliance

WHY DISTILLATE FUELS (MDO)??
AIR EMISSIONS WHY DISTILLATE FUELS (MDO)?? With no other measure, immediately reduces: SOx emissions by 80% to 90% PM emissions by 90% NOx emissions by 10% to 15% Reduces fuel consumption by some 4% for ALL Ships Negates the need for abatement technology, associated wastes and disposal of such wastes!! Less incidents with engine breakdowns due to poor quality fuels

OUTCOME FROM BLG 12 MEETING (FEB 2008)
AIR EMISSIONS - SOX OUTCOME FROM BLG 12 MEETING (FEB 2008) Alternatives (options) for Sulphur sulphur cap on fuels used in content Enforcement Global/all seas % [2012] 0.50% [2015] __________________________________________________________________ Open seas % Present SECAs % [2012] 3. Open seas % [2012] SECAs % [2010] Micro-SECA % [2015] (max 24 nm off coastline)

OUTCOME FROM MEPC 57 MEETING (APR 2008)
AIR EMISSIONS - SOX OUTCOME FROM MEPC 57 MEETING (APR 2008) Open sea 4.50% Prior to Jan 1, 2012 3.50% Jan 1, 2012 0.50% Jan 1, 2020 (Review of 0.50% standard to be conducted by group of experts by 2018 to determine availability of such fuel. If determined not possible, then date becomes Jan 1, 2025) SECAs 1.50% Prior to Mar 1, 2010 1.00% Jan 1, 2012 0.10% Jan 1, 2015

AIR EMISSIONS Equivalent Measures
An Administration may allow any fitting, material, appliance or apparatus to be fitted in a ship or other procedures, alternative fuel oils, or compliance methods used as an alternative to that required by this Annex if such methods are at least as effective in terms of emissions reductions as that required by this Annex, including those for SOx, PM and NOx. The Administration should take into account guidelines developed by the Organization. The Administration shall endeavour not to impair or damage its environment, human health, property or resources of those of another state.

AIR EMISSIONS Fuel Oil Availability and Quality
Each Party shall take all reasonable steps to promote the availability of fuel oils to comply with this Annex. If a ship is not compliant it should present evidence/record it attempted to buy the compliant fuel in accordance with the voyage plan. The ship not required to deviate from the voyage and should not be delayed. If evidence is provided, there should be no measures against the ship. The ship will have to notify its Administration and the relevant port of call each time it cannot find the compliant fuel.

AIR EMISSIONS - NOX Tier I limits already apply to engines installed on ships after Jan 1, (17.0 g/kg, less than 130 rpm, 9.8 g/kg, more than 2000 rpm) Extend application to engines installed from Jan 1990 – Dec 1999 with power output of more than 5000 kW and a per cylinder displacement at or above 90 liters. Applies from first renewal survey after Jan 1, Compliance expected through in engine modification or abatement technologies.

AIR EMISSIONS - NOX If the engine does not meet the Tier I NOx emission limitations, it is subject to measures: ONLY if there is an upgrading system certified by a Party to MARPOL Annex VI ONLY if it certifies that such a system reduces the emissions of that particular engine to Tier I limits the upgrading system is considered commercially available 12 months after a Party to MARPOL Annex VI deposits the notification on certification to IMO upgrade at the ship’s first renewal survey after the upgrading system becomes commercially available in case the upgrading system is not available at the time of completion of the renewal survey (ship owner has to document that), the flag would give an extension until the next Annual Survey

AIR EMISSIONS - NOX As part of the certification, the Party should check that the upgrading system does not decrease the engine rating by more than 1%, does not increase the fuel consumption by more than 2% and it has no other adverse effect on the durability or reliability of the engine Upgrading to an acceptable cost/benefit level calculated according to a cost efficiency formula

AIR EMISSIONS - NOX Tier II standards (emission reductions related to Tier I limits): 15.5% reduction (engines with n<130 rpm) (i.e g/kWh) reductions between 15.5% and 21.8% depending on the engine’s rpm (engines with 130 rpm < n < 2000 rpm) 21.8% reduction (engines n > 2000 rpm) (i.e g/kWh) Applies to engines installed on ships constructed on and after 1 January 2011

AIR EMISSIONS - NOX Tier III standards – 80% emission reductions from Tier I limits 3.40 g/kWh (engines with n<130 rpm) 9*n(-0.2) g/kWh (engines with 130 rpm < n < 2000 rpm) 1.96 g/kWh (engines n > 2000 rpm Tier III limits apply to engines: installed on ships constructed on & after 1 Jan 2016 power output of > 750 kW (130 kW – 750 kW may be exempted by the Administration) Tier III limits in ECAs only (to be designated) Outside ECAs - Tier II limits

AIR EMISSIONS FINAL STEPS IN PROCESS
PARTIES to ANNEX VI formally adopt amendments to Annex VI at MEPC 58 in October 2008 AMENDMENTS enters into force (earliest possible date is Feb 1, 2010) WILL the United States, the European Commission and California Air Resources Board accept the Annex VI amendments ????

GREENHOUSE GASES December 2003 – IMO Assembly adopts Resolution A.963(23), IMO Policies and Practices Related to the Reduction of GHG from Ships. Tasks MEPC to develop mechanisms to reduce GHG from shipping MEPC attempts to make progress, but is hampered by developing countries insistence that Article 2.2 Kyoto Protocol applies, ie. only Annex 1 countries are required to reduce GHG from shipping - “common but differentiated responsibilities”

GREENHOUSE GASES July 2005 – MEPC adopts MEPC/Circ.471, Interim Guidelines for Voluntary Ship CO2 Emission Indexing for Use in Trials NOV 2007 – IMO Secretary General informs Assembly of his intentions to recommend to MEPC a way forward to expedite IMO work on GHG emissions from ships APRIL 2008 – SG presents expedited work plan to MEPC 57 which proposes completion of tasks by July 2009, including intersessional working group meeting in Oslo June 23-27, 2008

GREENHOUSE GASES MEPC 57 Agreed with the Secretary General’s expedited work plan Approved short term and long term measures to reduce GHG emissions from ships for further consideration Established terms of reference for Oslo working group meeting

GREENHOUSE GASES Short term measures Improvement in fuel consumption
Energy efficient ship design Onshore power supply Use of wind power Rating performance of ships and operators Limitations on leakage rates of refrigerants Vessel speed reductions Measures to improve traffic control and cargo handling Hybrid economic measures Voluntary commitments

GREENHOUSE GASES Long Term Measures Technical measures for ship design
Use of alternative fuels Mandatory ship design index for new ships External verification scheme for operational index Operational index limit combined with penalty for non-compliance Emission trading scheme Clean development mechanisms Mandatory CO2 element in port infrastructure charging

GREENHOUSE GASES Working Group Terms of Reference
Develop mandatory CO2 design index for new ships Review existing CO2 operational index guidelines (MEPC/Circ.471), develop methodology for baseline and consider purpose of such an index Develop further mechanisms, such as: 1. Global fuel levy or hybrid mechanism; 2. Emissions trading schemes (ETS) and/or clean development mechanism (CDM); 3. Best practices on the range of short and long term measures identified Consider the level of reductions achieved and address the design, implementation, cost benefit, regulatory, legal impacts, as well as the impacts on the shipping industry, flag and port states and other stakeholders, of each option

GREENHOUSE GASES Vessel Operational Index
MEPC Circ 471 Index (gram CO2/tonne mile) = ∑ FCi × Ccarbon / ∑ m cargo i × D I FC is fuel consumption, C is carbon content index M cargo is cargo mass, D is distance sailed Issues for consideration Application to all ship types ? No distinction between technical/commercial actions Effects of ballast voyages Effects of time averaging Verification mechanisms

GREENHOUSE GASES Vessel Design Index Issues for consideration
Japanese Proposed Index (gram CO2/tonne-mile) = Fuel Cons (g/kW hr) x (ME power (kW) x (1+K2)) x C/c DWT (tonne) x Max Speed (n mile/hr) x K1 K1 is Coefficient of decreased propulsion efficiency in actual sea conditions K2 is Coefficient of contribution to CO2 from aux engines and energy conservation equipment Issues for consideration Application to all ship types ? One or more design conditions ? – e.g. load/ballast One or more sea conditions ? – how weighted ? How measured / normalised / verified ?

GREENHOUSE GASES Danish proposal – Global fuel levy
Most viable short term solution to reduce GHG (?) Apply to all ships in international trade Revenue collected nationally and channeled to independent international GHG fund Revenue generated applied to: 1. acquisition of emission quotas/credits generated in other industrial sectors 2. funding projects in developing nations 3. funding IMO Technical Cooperation program Recognition that numerous details need be further addressed in detail and have submitted details to Oslo working group meeting

GREENHOUSE GASES Other outstanding questions
Will maritime transportation be included in a future global framework under the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol OR will IMO be allowed to address GHG from ships? Will it apply to all ships OR will a “common but differentiated responsibilities” prevail? If through IMO, will it be a revision of Annex VI of MARPOL or a new IMO treaty?

BALLAST WATER International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water is adopted at IMO Conference in 2004 Entry in Force – 30 countries representing 35% of the world’s gross tonnage Current ratifications – 11 countries representing 3.46% of world’s gross tonnage

BALLAST WATER TREATY REQUIREMENTS Ballast Water Management Plan
Ballast Water Record Book Ballast Water Management Certificate and surveys to verify compliance Mandates ships to conduct ballast water exchange until equipment is approved to meet ballast water standard

BALLAST WATER BALLAST WATER STANDARD
Less than 10 viable organism greater than 50 microns is size per cubic meter of water Less than 10 viable organism smaller than 50 microns and greater than 10 micron is size per cubic meter of water Human health standards for cholerae, coli and cocci

BALLAST WATER Dates NEW ships must meet standard
Ships constructed in or after 2009 with ballast water capacity of less than 5000 cubic meters – When built Ships constructed in or after 2009, but before 2012 with ballast water capacity of 5000 cubic meters or more – 2016 Ships constructed in or after 2012 with a ballast water capacity of 5000 cubic meters or more – When built

BALLAST WATER Dates EXISTING ships must meet standard
Ships constructed before 2009 with ballast water capacity between 1500 cubic meters and 5000 cubic meters Ships constructed before 2009 with ballast water capacity of less than 1500 cubic meters OR greater than 5000 cubic meters

BALLAST WATER STATUS OF EQUIPMENT APPROVALS Type Approval 1
(NEI Treatment Systems) Final Approval 2 (Pureballast System) (SEDNA) Basic Approval Under Development 8 (Systems using “active substances” require IMO “basic” and then “final” approval)

BALLAST WATER November IMO Assembly adopts resolution delaying 2009 date Recognizes that there is “uncertainties as to whether technology is available” for ships to comply with the standard Recommends delaying implementation date of 2009 until Dec 2011 Requests MEPC to keep matter under review and determine feasibility of 2010 date

BALLAST WATER FIVE KEY IMO GUIDELINES (out of 16) that are aimed at assisting the ship operator Ballast water sampling Ballast water management and the development of ballast water management plans Ballast water exchange Ballast water exchange design and construction standards Sediment control on ships

Countries that have taken national action
BALLAST WATER Countries that have taken national action Australia Argentina Brazil Canada Chile Georgia Israel Lithuania New Zealand Panama Peru Russia Ukraine USA To see the details of their requirements, go to – Environment – Ballast Water – Ballast Water Legislation

SHIP RECYCLING NOV 2005 IMO agrees to develop a new treaty for ship recycling to regulate: Design, construction, operation and preparation of ships for environmentally sound recycling Operation of recycling facilities in safe, environmentally sound manner Appropriate enforcement of both through certification and reporting

SHIP RECYCLING Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMO is developing new treaty Initial draft treaty has been prepared and is undergoing review and revision Target is to adopt the new treaty at an international conference in 2009 in Hong Kong with entry into force in 2012(?)

SHIP RECYCLING MAJOR ELEMENTS OF TREATY (SHIP)–
Control of ship’s hazardous material (prohibit or restrict its use) Ship inventory of hazardous materials Ship recycling plan Ship “ready for recycling” Ship survey and certification Reporting (Notify of intent)

SHIP RECYCLING MAJOR ELEMENTS (FACILITY) –
Standards for facility design/operations Document of authorization Recycling Management Plan Safe and environmentally sound operational procedures Emergency preparedness/response plan Worker safety and training Reporting (upon completion)

SHIP RECYCLING Complicating Factor
US proposes to include provisions in treaty that allows ships to be recycled in non-party states (free trade issue) MEPC 57 rejects proposal because it could encourage recycling states not to ratify Problem is that flag states may not ratify treaty until major recycling states do so

SHIP RECYCLING INTERTANKO INTERIM STRATEGY –
Due diligence in selection recycling facility Ship to maintain a hazardous materials inventory Minimize residues to facilitate “gas free for hot work” Provide info to facility to facilitate development of Ship Recycling Plan (by facility) Submit delivery declaration to flag state

ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS October 2001 – IMO Conference adopts International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships September 2007 – With Panama ratification of treaty, entry into force conditions are met September 17, 2008 – Anti-Fouling Treaty will enter into force for all parties (US and Canada are currently not party)

ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS Countries party to Anti-Fouling Treaty
Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bulgaria, Cook Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Poland, Romania, St. Kitts & Nevis, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tuvalu,

ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS Treaty Requirements
By January 1, 2003 no ship shall apply or re-apply organotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems By January 1, 2008, ships shall either: 1. not bear such compounds on their hulls or external parts or surfaces; or 2. bear a coating that forms a barrier to such compounds leaching from the underlying non-compliant anti-fouling systems Ships shall carry: 1. an International Anti-Fouling System Certificate 2. a Declaration on Anti-Fouling Systems

ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS MEPC 57 issue – should the treaty requirement dates (Jan 1, 2003 and Jan 1, 2008) be deemed to take effect on entry into force date (Sept 17, 2008) OR should there be retroactive application?? DECISION – 1. No consensus on the date on which these requirements should be applied; 2. Agreement to let each party apply provisions in accordance with its national law; and 3. Invite each party to inform IMO of its decision on implementation and enforcement of provisions NOTE: EC states that under European regulation, no ship may enter a European port with a tin-based anti-fouling system after January 1, US???

LONG RANGE IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING OF SHIPS
SECURITY LONG RANGE IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING OF SHIPS (LRIT)

PURPOSE OF LRIT To enable Contracting Governments to SOLAS to undertake the Long-Range Identification and Tracking of ships approaching their shores

LRIT – WHICH SHIPS? Ships engaged on international voyages:
Passenger ships Cargo ships, 300 GRT and above Mobile offshore drilling units

LRIT – WHAT INFO? The ship shall automatically transmit the following information: - Identity of the ship (IMO No.) - Ship position (Latitude and longitude) - Date and time of position (However, IMO has already agreed to start looking into what other information could be transmitted for environmental purposes)

LRIT - EXCEPTIONS Transmission my cease –
Where international agreements, regulations, etc. provide for the protection of navigation information; or - Operation is considered by the Master to compromise safety or security of the ship

LRIT – LOCATED WHERE? Ships flying the flag of the contracting government – ANYWHERE Ships indicating their intention to call at a port of contracting government – ANYWHERE Ships not intending to call at a port of the contracting government – WITHIN 1000 MILES OF ITS COAST

LRIT – WHEN? New Regulation 19-1 of CHAPTER V OF SOLAS entered into force on Jan 1, 2008 Ships must be fitted with a system to automatically transmit info: - New ships constructed on or after Dec 31, 2008 - Ships constructed before Dec 31, 2008, not later than first survey of radio installation after July 1, 2009

LRIT – COSTS? Contracting government shall bear all costs associated with any LRIT information they request and receive Unless national legislation provides otherwise, ships flying an Administrations flag shall not incur any charges for transmitting LRIT information (???)

LRIT COSTS Financial viability of LRIT system in doubt
Less than 20% of LRIT date collected will be requested by port/coastal states Proposal to reduce position reports from every 6 hours to every 12 hours is rejected MSC 84 endorses financial model based upon “user pays principle” Contracting governments setting up data centers are responsible for costs to establish and maintain such centers

LRIT COSTS Contracting governments should be able to seek recovery of costs, but not at a profit Ship to shore communication cost estimated at 0.25 – 0.35 USD per transmission Data center entitled to cover overhead up to twice the communication cost If charge exceeds twice the cost, it should be justified and sent to IMO All charges for poll requests, changes in intervals or archive reports shall be borne by requester

LRIT - EQUIPMENT Shipboard equipment shall be:
Capable of automatically transmitting ship’s LRIT information at 6-hour intervals Capable of being configured remotely to transmit LRIT information at variable intervals Capable of transmitting LRIT information following receipt of polling commands

LRIT - EQUIPMENT Shipboard equipment shall (con’t):
Interface directly with shipboard navigation satellite system equipment Be supplied with energy from the main and emergency source of electrical power Be tested for electromagnetic compatibility (IMO RES A.813(19))

LRIT Contracting governments shall:
Recognize the importance of LRIT information Recognize/respect commercial confidentiality and sensitivity of LRIT information received Protect information they receive from unauthorized access or disclosure Use LRIT information they receive in a manner consistent with international law

LRIT – SYSTEM DESIGN LRIT Data Users (Coastal State)
LRIT Data Providers (Flag State) LRIT Data Centers - National - Regional - International (no longer an option) LRIT Data Exchange LRIT Data Distribution Plan

US PORT SECURITY US Maritime Transportation Security Act mandates USCG to evaluate effectiveness of security in foreign ports USCG conducts foreign port assessments around the world USCG offers reciprocal assessment of US ports by foreign governments Currently 10 countries listed as having ports not maintaining effective measures:

US PORT SECURITY CAMEROON CUBA EQUATORIAL GUINEA GUINEA BISSAU
INDONESIA IRAN LIBERIA MAURITANIA SOA TOME & PRINCIPLE SYRIA Note: Not all ports in these countries are considered as not having effective measures. (USCG website)

US PORT SECURITY Action required of vessels visiting these ports in last 5 port calls Implement measures equivalent to Security Level 2 while in those ports Ensure all ship access points are guarded Attempt to execute Declaration of Security Log all security actions in ship’s log Report to USCG COTP actions taken prior to arrival in the US

US PORT SECURITY Actions required by such vessels when in US ports
Each access point to the ship must be guarded by armed security guards while in US ports 24/7 Number and location of guards must be to the satisfaction of the USCG COTP Those vessels that can demonstrate good security compliance and document the measures taken while in that port, the armed security guard requirement MAY be waived

HUMAN ELEMENT MANNING - IMO Safe Manning Document - ILO Convention 180
- Maritime universities TRAINING - Cadet berths - Tanker Officer Training Standards (TOTS)

HUMAN ELEMENT - MANNING
IMO SAFE MANNING DOCUMENT (SOLAS V/14) IMO Resolution A.890(21) contains guidelines on the principles of safe manning IMO objective is to revise these guidelines to ensure that ships are properly manned for the safe and secure operation of the ship and the avoidance of seafarer fatigue IMO Maritime Safety Committee has tasked STW Subcommittee with considering the need for mandatory requirements for safe manning INTERTANKO is actively involved in STW Subcommittee deliberations

ILO CONVENTION No. 180 – adopted in 1996, seafarers hours of work and manning of ships - 14 hours of work in any 24 hour period; and - 72 hours in any 7 day period, OR Minimum hours of rest – - 10 hours in any 24 hour period; and - 77 hours in any 7 day period INTERTANKO recognized – - difficulties by shipboard staff to comply with the regulations for hours of work and rest; and - PSC regimes would inspect for compliance INTERTANKO has developed “Guidance Booklet on Seafarers Hours of Work and Rest”

INTERTANKO GUIDANCE BOOKLET ON SEAFARERS HOURS OF REST AND WORK Summary of ILO 180 requirements Summary of IMO STCW work/rest requirements Explanation of IMO safe manning document General guidelines regarding manning levels Guidelines for compliance with requirements Implementation of ILO 180 hours of rest/work Maintaining records, endorsements and monitoring Watch keeping patterns Optional watch keeping systems Evidence of compliance for Port State Control officers

MARITIME UNIVERSITIES Working with maritime universities around the world who have alumni, graduates and cadets seeking at sea and shoreside positions to bring “the supply” in contact with “the demand” Helping to identify specific needs of maritime industry with regard to necessary skills and expertise and numbers that need training Working with ABS to possible develop a “Guide for Crew Habitability on Ships” to improve crew living conditions on board ships

HUMAN ELEMENT - TRAINING
CADET BERTHING Conducted survey of members in 2006 and determined that there were insufficient berths on new buildings to accommodate cadets INTERTANKO “BEST PRACTICES” revised to reflect members commitment or agreement to: Enlist cadets and cadet officers on each ship where suitable cabin space exists New-buildings should include suitable cabin space for cadets in new-building specifications

Growing concern over recent increase in tanker incidents caused by the lack of expertise Regulatory response – review and update of IMO Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Convention Oil Company Response - - Currently, STCW and Tanker Endorsements do not provide the level of comfort required - Officer Matrix Requirements (“Time with Company” and “Time in Rank”) established by TOTAL, Shell, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Koch

Tanker Officer Training Standards (TOTS) INTERTANKO initiative which: Addresses increasing trend in tanker accidents Provides a coordinated response to oil companies which: - Demonstrates an enhanced level of competency on board (via training and verification process) - Eases compliance with Officer Matrix Requirements It is NOT a replacement Tanker Endorsement It is NOT an alternative Tanker Endorsement It is a VOLUNTARY program

Four Elements of the TOTS 1. TOTS: Training Record Books: Time in Rank Time with Company 2. TOTS: Computer Based Assessment (CBA) 3. TOTS: Company Verification (CBA) 4. TOTS: Ship Specific Practical Simulator Verification/Training Tanker Type Specific Time in Rank Specific

1. TRAINING RECORD BOOKS TOTS: Time in Rank Three levels of training record book established: 1A. Command Module 1B. Senior Engineer Officers 1C. Junior Officer Tanker Module (Deck and Engine) TOTS: Time with Company One generic record book 1D. Generic Record Book Module

Command Module A.1 Ship Handling & Characteristics A.2 Pilotage A.3 Mooring Equipment & Operations A.4 Passage Planning/Navigation A.5 Navigating in Restricted Visibility A.6 Heavy Weather Navigation A.7 Emergencies, Drills & Fire Fighting Equipment A.8 Ship/Shore Interface A.9 Ship to Ship Transfer A.10 Helicopter Operations A.11 Pollution Prevention & Environmental Protection B.1 General Tanker Section B.2.1 Flammability Composition Diagram B.3 Fixed & Portable Gas Detections Systems B.4 Enclosed Spaces/Tank Atmosphere Evaluation B.5 Familiarisation prior Cargo Operations B.6 Cargo Information Personnel Safety – Health C. CHEMICAL TANKERS D. PRODUCT TANKERS E. CRUDE OIL TANKERS

Senior Engineer Officers A.1 Engine Room Operations during manoeuvring A.2 Engine Room Operations during special circumstances A.3 Watchkeeping in the Engine Room A.4 Operation, monitoring and trouble shooting machinery A.5 Electrical, Electronic and Control Operations A.6 Maintenance and Repair A.7 Control of operations and Care of personnel onboard B.1 Management of the Engineering Department C. EMERGENCIES, DRILLS & FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT C.1 Emergencies, Drills & Fire Fighting Equipment. D. POLLUTION & ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION D.1 Pollution & Environment Protection E. GENERAL TANKER SECTION E.1 General Tanker Section F. FLAMMABILITY COMPOSITION DIAGRAM F.1 The Flammability Diagram (Ref: ISGOTT 5th Edition) G. FIXED & PORTABLE GAS DETECTION SYSTEMS G.1 Fixed and Portable Gas Detection systems G.2 Enclosed Spaces/Tank Atmosphere Evaluation H. FAMILIARISATION PRIOR CARGO OPERATIONS H.1 Familiarisation prior cargo operations H.2 Cargo Information-Requirements-Precautions-Personnel Safety-Health Data

Junior Officer Tanker Module (Deck and Engine) A. GENERAL SHIPBOARD OPERATIONS (DECK) A.1 Ship Handling & Characteristics (Deck) A.2 Pilotage (Deck) A.3 Mooring Equipment & Operations (Deck) A.4 Emergencies, Drills & Fire Fighting Equipment A.5 Pollution Prevention & Environmental Protection B. NAVIGATION (DECK) B.1 Passage Planning/Navigation/Chart Correction B.2 Navigating in Restricted Visibility (Deck) B.3 Heavy Weather & Ice Navigation (Deck) C. GENERAL TANKER SECTION C.2.1 Flammability Composition Diagram C.3 Fixed & Portable Gas Detections Systems C.4 Enclosed Spaces/Tank Atmosphere Evaluation C.5 Familiarisation Prior Cargo Operations (Deck) C.6 Cargo Information-Precautions-Personnel Safety D. CHEMICAL TANKER SUPPLEMENT E. PRODUCT TANKER SUPPLEMENT F. CRUDE OIL TANKER SUPPLEMENT G. GENERAL SHIPBOARD OPERATIONS G.1 Engine room operations during Manoeuvring G.2 Watchkeeping in the Engine Room (Engine) G.3 Operation, monitoring troubleshooting Machinery G.4 Maintenance and Repair G.5 Control of Operations and Care of Persons H.1 Management of the Engineering Department I. POLLUTION & ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

TOTS: Time in Rank Human Element addressed in each record Book: Situational awareness Planning & Decision making Communications Teamwork Emotional climate Stress Managing Stress Commercial Organizational Pressures & Morale Fatigue

2. COMPUTER BASED ASSESSMENT (CBA) TOTS: Time in Rank CBA (CD-ROM) to verify candidates understanding of “Time in Rank” tasks CBA = ~2000 Questions: Total Dataset 18-20 CBA assessments per Record book TOTS Time in Rank Certification follows the Candidate

COMPANY VERIFICATION TOTS: Time with Company - CBA based company verification process to verify candidates understanding of “Time with Company” - Tailor made Company Specific - If the Officer changes company, they must re-train for Time in Company with the new company

4. Ship Specific Practical Simulator Verification and Training Simulator courses designed to meet TOTS standard Can be run by any externally accredited Maritime Training Centre Trains & Verifies tanker type knowledge with 6 courses in three areas…

4. Ship Specific Practical Simulator Verification and Training 6 TOTS Specific Model Simulator Courses 4A Chemical Tanker Simulator Model Training Course 4B Chemical Tanker Simulator Model Verification Course 4C Product Tanker Simulator Model Training Course 4D Product Tanker Simulator Model Verification Course 4E Crude Oil Tanker Simulator Training Course 4F Crude Oil Tanker Simulator Verification Course

Meetings with OCIMF, Chevron and SIRE Focus Group (Chevron, BP, Shell, Total, ExxonMobil) – TOTS positively received “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) and detailed summary brochure TOTS Working Books: completed TOTS CD-ROMs for CBA: completed TOTS launched April 22 at INTERTANKO Annual Tanker Event in Istanbul, Turkey

THANK YOU!!

INTERNATIONAL SHIP-OWNERS ALLIANCE OF CANADA JUNE 4, 2008

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "INTERNATIONAL SHIP-OWNERS ALLIANCE OF CANADA JUNE 4, 2008"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

INTERNATIONAL SHIP-OWNERS ALLIANCE OF CANADA JUNE 4, 2008

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "INTERNATIONAL SHIP-OWNERS ALLIANCE OF CANADA JUNE 4, 2008"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback