|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2013-4-19 10:30
|
显示全部楼层
来自： 中国福建宁德
压载水处理的装置的博弈
The Gimcrack Convention,that's what it is. There can be no more appropriate phrase to describle the mandatory installation of a new piece of kit that is expensive to run, energy consuming, unproven , impossible to test and offers absolutely no return on investment.
What's more it has been agrued that the ratification of the international Ballast water Management Convention and the requisite installation if treatment plant is unlikely to have any major impact on the movement of non-indigenous aquatic species, since the migration if marine organisms will continue as sea tempetrature rise with global warming. Indeed, there is documented evidence suggesting that species migration has actually restored one US lake to having a self-sufficient ecosystem. It has also been claimed that since the implementation of the ballast water exchange programme, there has not been one reported migration case listed within 200miles of the US coast
So it is of no surprise then that the International Ballast Water Management Convention is anathema to shipowners throughout the world , manay of whom believe the Convention conflicts with initiatives to cut emissions and optimise energy efficiency.(It has been estimated that a power increase of between 10 and 30% would be required to run a treatment plant) But what galls shipowners the most is that at no point during the decisionmaking process have they been invited to the table to offer insight.
Echoing the sentiments of a number of shipowners/shipmanagers we contracted in the furtherance of this report, Chris Gold sworthy,fleet manager for Bernard Schulte Shipmengement (Cyprus) ,says that since the introduction of a ballast water management plant will impact both financially and operationally on the shipping industry as a whole,'surely it would have been beneficial from the outset to have involved the shipowners/shipmanagers in the development of the proposal ?We are the ones that will have to make it work or face the expected heavy financial penalties.'
It has been estimated that over 70 000 vessels need to be fitted with a treatment plant, costing the industry upwards of $38bn- a figure that could find scrapping vessels a more financiallly attractive option.
Indeed, a number of speakers presenting papers at the recent IMarEST-organised conference on the Covention pointed out the economic viability of retiring a ship rather than absorbing the capital and operating costs of a ballast water treatment plant that would only be used for a few years.
Additionally, banks may not provide finance for systems because it does not provide a return on investment , instead forcing the shipowner to pay outright. However, whilst premature scraping of ships will ease the ballast water treatment plant installation problem-likely to require up to 40 installations a day once the convention has been ratified -it could have an unforeseen impact on the would fleet.
Someone from a classification society highlighted another potential problem:human resources.'We do not have boxes full of engineers ready to be unpacked at a moment's notice to satisfy the short term surge in demand for installation of ballast water systems,eapecially as there is still considerable doubt as to the shape and timing of the demand profile,' he said . Human resources are important, not only for installation, but also for operation and maintance. There is a huge education effort required to train the crews of all the ships that are going to be installed with a variety of new ballast water treatment plants.
However, it was the issue of sampling that left most shipowners at the conference with more questions and even fewever answers. In his report on the conference, prepared on behalf of IMarEST, University College London's Dr Alistair Greig writes:'Compliance with the Convention and verification of compliance was a major topic with many speakers questioning the praticalities of following the requirements to the letter. To do this would require a significant resource to collect representative samples(with what constitutes a representative sample still open to debate)from numerous tanks and then have enough experts, with appropriate laboratory facilities, to test the samples. One issue high lighted by biologists was the difficulty of determining if an organism was viable. This may require more than one expert given the huge variety of life that will be encountered which include; viruses,bacteria, human pathogens, phytoplankton, zooplankton all in different developmental stages (adults, aysts , eggs, resting stages, larvae etc.).The global diversity, and whether the species are from fresh water, coastal waters or open ocean waters also needs to be considered. The required testing could take many hours or even days depending upon the location, the capacity of the laboratory and the degree of complicance expected(will each port be required to have its own laboratory for example?).'
It was furthered that if sampling is undertaken in large ports, such as Singapore, the sheer volume of water to be processed could see ships delayed in port for much longer than their typical 6-8h turnaround times.
'One of the problems with the Convention,'Greig's report states,'is that it was written before there was any experience with sampling or before ballase water treatment technology was developed.Yet the guidance produced is more comprehensive than in any other convention. When written it was a "best guess"of the world's experts.Some of the guidence will have to be revisited once the convention comes into force.However,the knowledge that there will be amendments results in a level of uncertaintY and all those involved are, as such, slightly less willing to commit to any decision that might be affected as a result of the as yet defined potential amendments.
'The ideal solution for sampling is a simple tool, like a breathalyser, that can quickly test a sample at the collection point.This is seen as the ultimate technological goal,but is still some way off.This may make the enforcement task easier and eliminates the tolerance debate.The feeling seems to be that proving gross non-compliance is more realistic than trying to prove full compliance and that port State Control may be able to rely on this alongside a type approval certificate and proof that the system and is operating properly.'
Since the Convention has yet to be ratified and with so many issues remaining unresolved . the proposals could be shelved in favour of less complicated and costly treatment methods.
Like a number of the industry's luminaries, InterManager's secretary-general Captain Kuba Szymanski believes ballast water treatment should be carried out port-side. To him,it's a no-brainer.'If we were to install ballast water treatment plants ashore in the world's 8000 ports we would save the cost of installing systems om 70 000 ships.It is also easier to sample the water ashore. The only issue is that ports are outside of IMO jurisdiction.But from a global point of view we would save a lot of money,a lot of energy, a lot of emissions',Szymanski tells Shipping World& Shipbuilder.
InterManager is currently preparing a report on this and will submit it to IMO within the next few weeks. Similarly, the Sanish Shipowners' Association is investigating the potential of portside facilities and is expected to back the notion.
Columbia Shipmanagement's technical director, Eddie Buknall, is also behind the concept. 'If anyone is really serious about ballast water treatment, then do the treatment ashore. Done aborad a ship will Not work,'he asserted at the IMarEST conference.
Bucknall also proposed that fresh water could be used as ballast and transported to arid areas were freshwater is scarce.He believe that ships routes could be revised so that freshwater is taken as ballast from areas were the resource is plentiful and discharged in regions where it is short supply.If river water,treated sewage etc was used as ballast it could be used in arid countries for irrigation rather than discharged to sea.The extra port infrastructure and pumping costs would be offset by the non-requirement to treat the ballast water. It would also reduce tank corrosion, he says.
One of his presentation slides offered twenty reasons why ports and freshwater ballasting should be given serious consideration. These are :
1.Only the shore can carry out accurate sampling;
2.Only the shore can carry out testing which will be accurate and acceptable
3.Ballast water with an appreciable salinity difference will kill most marine organisms;
4.Freshwater irrigation quality is available in many ports of the world;
5.Freshwater carried in ballast tanks will reduce corrosion. This will make ships last longer and safer;
6.Arabian Gulf areas are badly in need of water(see attached newspaper cutting);
7.Irrigation ballast water could be very welcome in many areas of the world;
8.Ballast water of known quality and certified from ashore could be accepted by a port in advance. There is no probability of port officials making illegal cash out of ballast water;
9.Any new country legislation could be takern care of. The USA can define their requirements to a port operator prior to a ship being traded;
10.Ships will not have to change their plant every time new legislation is imposed;
11.Far fewer plants will be required;
12.Ports can easily provide the personnel to operate treatment plants and make money out of the treatment;
13.Ballast voyages for tankers and bulkers could become profitable.Reduction of wasted fuel for the ballast run;
14.The chance of invasion will be reduced as ships will have certified clean ballastr. Re-growth in tanks will not take place;
15.Ships machinery space will be safer without the need for extra aea water popes;Design today have minimum SW pipes especially with all the electronics fitted. Seawater pipes represent a potential hazard;
16.Ships crew will not have additional equipment,less workload;
17.Legally at the present time it would be almost impossible to make a case against a vessel for untreated ballast.Unless it was a very blatant case;
18.The extent of damage caused by untreated ballast from a ship is impossible to define.
19.Insurance cover for a violation and invasion would be impossible;
20.There is no manufacturing capacity out there to meet the 70 000 plants required. Where as if ports were to be equipped, there is plenty if manufacturing capacity to meet this far smaller requirement.
Now that the Convention is unlikely to be ratified until 2013.even 2014,regulators have the chance to open up the debating chamber to shipowners. Regulators also have the opportunity to rip up the proposals and start again! |
|
发表于 2013-3-13 16:09
提升卡
变色卡
