Limcologistics

Might ship safety become the “poor relative” in the current crusade against harmful emissions? It is at least arguable that the practical consequences of the various measures now being proposed for the reduction of CO2 and other emissions seem to be ignored amidst the expressions of environmental zeal which are driving the various measures. Practical engineers have already voiced their concerns at the focus upon emissions seeming to ignore the real problems that emerge in their departments from the need for environmental compliance. The needs of the engine, as opposed to that of the environment, have become secondary. It is understood, for instance, that there have already been instances of ships which have been disabled during the operation to change from one fuel specification to another when entering or leaving a SECA. Fortunately, none has resulted in a serious accident, which is attributable, it might be thought, to luck rather than judgement.
There has been a notable increase in the number of reports of serious and disabling damage to engines which has been firmly laid at the door of fuel problems, mostly those connected to catalytic fines and associated with low sulphur fuel. There have been warnings that these incidents are likely to increase as a result of the increased demand for even lower sulphur levels, even with increased use of fuel quality testing.
It has also been suggested that the industry in general really does not understand the practical implications of these fuel changes on existing marine machinery, which have been forced upon it by interests with a purely environmental agenda.
It is always worthwhile considering the probable consequences of a catastrophic disablement of a large oil-laden ship on a lee shore in bad weather. It was water in the fuel which disabled the 89,000 DWT Braer on her final fatal voyage, which ended up with the ship smashed to pieces on the Shetlands. It does not require a great deal of imagination to extrapolate this accident to some fuel-related disablement which could be related directly to the issue of “fuel-management”, a new and important marine science! It is unlikely that luck, which has so far ensured that a disabled ship could be anchored or a salvage tug was within hailing distance, will continue indefinitely.
Do any of these practical problems register with the environmentally-driven politicians, or even the regulators who are wrestling with the need to reduce shipping’s environmental footprint? There seems every reason to believe that the doubts of practical engineers come well down on the list of priorities, which seem to revolve around various “market-based instruments” which seek to develop some lucrative lines of work for traders and threaten to further increase the costs of moving goods by sea.
There seems to be limited sympathy for the warnings recently given that the further reduction in sulphur in bunkers burned in the Baltic will have the unintended consequence of forcing a great deal of traffic off the short sea ships and onto road transport. Environmental zeal requires, it seems, a certain single mindedness!

Source: Watchkeeper, Bimco