More Needs to be Done to Stop Invisive Species

The following is a Press Release from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center:

(EDGEWATER, Md.) -- Invasive species have hitchhiked to the U.S. on cargo ships for centuries, but the method U.S. regulators most rely on to keep them out is not equally effective across coasts. Ecologists from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center have found that ports on the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico are significantly less protected than ports on the West Coast.

Invaders are frequently introduced across oceans and along coastlines through the ballast water in ship hulls, water that often includes plankton and larval stages of marine and estuarine species. Large vessels need this water for balance as they load and unload cargo. However, by dumping ballast water in their ports of entry, they accidentally bring in new species that can alter or damage the local ecosystem. In 2004 policymakers thought they had found a solution: have cargo vessels exchange their ballast water in the open ocean, at least 200 nautical miles from land. This method, called “open-ocean exchange,” flushes out or kills potential invaders by exchanging coastal water for water from the deep ocean.

But some ships do not use the practice and many more cannot without veering drastically off course. In perhaps the most comprehensive study to date, Whitman Miller and a team of scientists from SERC looked at all international ships entering the contiguous U.S. over three years. Published today in the journal BioScience, the study analyzed approximately 105,000 vessel reports from January 2005 to December 2007. While most ships opted not to discharge their ballast water at all, a substantial number continued to dump unexchanged or improperly exchanged water into their ports of entry.

Not all coasts are affected equally. The Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast received much larger fractions of unexchanged ballast water than the West Coast. Roughly 5 percent of the ballast water discharged on the West Coast had not undergone open-ocean exchange. By contrast 21 percent of the discharged water in the Gulf and 23 percent on the East Coast went unexchanged.

Much of the problem comes down to simple geography. Depending on a ship’s transit route, it may not have the time or space to conduct open-ocean exchange. A mere 24 percent of the ballast water discharged by ships journeying to U.S. ports along coastal routes, from Central or South America, for example, underwent open-ocean exchange. In contrast 91 percent of ballast water discharge by transoceanic shipping was exchanged in the open ocean, where ships have more opportunities to manage their water properly. Because so many of their incoming ships do not pass through the open ocean, ports in the Gulf and East Coast receive more potentially harmful water.

The vast discrepancies point to the need for another solution, ecologists say. If ships could treat their ballast water on board without having to journey to the open ocean, every coast would be safer.

“The Gulf of Mexico coast receives more overseas ballast water discharge than the East or West coasts, and most of this water is either unexchanged or exchanged inside coastal waters,” said Miller. “Given the geographic constraints of shipping, and the complexity of the invasion process, it is clear that we need to move to onboard ballast water treatment technologies that will allow ships to operate anywhere in the world without fear of releasing harmful invasive species.”

The full paper is available upon request. To receive a copy, to speak with Miller or for more information, contact Kristen Minogue at (443) 482-2325 or Monaca Noble at (443) 482-2467.

Bad News for the US Shipping Industry.

Source: IFW

Pete Goldin | Wed, 2 Nov 2011

Average US vessel operating costs last year were almost three times higher than their international counterparts, according to a report from MARAD, the US maritime administration body.

The report, Comparison of US and Foreign-Flag Operating Costs, says: “US flag-carriers are at a distinct disadvantage in their ability to compete in international transport markets.”

The comparison used aggregate average total operating costs.

MARAD also found that average operating costs for US-flagged containerships and ro-ro vessels in particular were generally three times higher than foreign-registered ships.

Difference in crew costs were even more noticeable – roughly 5.3 times higher for US-flagged vessels in 2010, even though their average crew size is slightly smaller. Crewing costs on US bulk carriers were 5.7 times higher.

The report attributes the higher operating costs to regulatory requirements on vessel labour, insurance and liability, maintenance and repairs, taxes and expenses associated with environmental compliance, higher wage rates and social benefits.

The report also notes that approximately 110 ships fly the US flag, while more than 540 US-owned vessels are registered in 31 other countries, presumably to reduce costs.

The report also suggests several options MARAD may pursue to encourage participation in the US fleet.

These include promotions and missions to secure additional streams of commercial cargo for US-flagged vessels, encouraging US companies to support domestic industry by using US vessels and providing information on annual cargo preference volumes to assist carriers with business planning.

Holiday Parade Warnings from the Coast Guard.

Risks include illegal charters, overloaded vessels, Christmas lights

(11/8/2011)

The following is the text of a press release issued by the U.S. Coast Guard: (SAN PEDRO, Calif.) -- With the holiday boat parade season upon us, the Coast Guard wants to remind boaters and observers of certain safety pointers. General safety hazards for ALL boat operations: Illegal charters Overloaded or unsafe electrical systems due to Christmas lights Too many passengers affect stability of vessels – ensure compliance with maximum capacity Recreational boats cannot charge passengers to board their vessels – illegal, resulting in fines 5 knot speed limit strictly enforced during all boat parades Spot checks may be conducted on certified T-Boats: Adequate number of lifejackets Merchant Mariner licenses onboard Adequate number of crewmembers Compliance with vessel security plans Just like in past years, Coast Guard marine inspectors will be conducting additional inspections of vessels involved in the parades and evening trips.

America's Cup Act of 2011 has passed! Now what?

While it is commendable that the Senate and House passed the America's Cup Act of 2011, I still question the need for the bill. This created a loophole in the Jones Act of 1920 and sets a precedent for every on the water sporting event to be held in the future. It will effect any boat race, power or sail, held in U.S. Waters. The America's Cup World Series Events and the America's Cup Challenge are very big events. The question now is, are they going to write new bills into law for the small events held in Florida, California, Washington and New England that draw international teams? 

Here is the Press Release from the America's Cup Race Authority:

America’s Cup Event Authority today issued the following statement on the America’s Cup Act of 2011:

Saturday, 05 November 2011

“We applaud the members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives who voted overwhelmingly in support of the America’s Cup Act of 2011,” said Craig Thompson, Chief Executive Officer, America’s Cup Event Authority. “This Act enables our international field of America’s Cup teams to participate in the only global sporting event currently committed to come to the United States in the next decade.”

The upcoming America’s Cup events in Newport, Rhode Island, San Francisco and San Diego, California are predicted to create thousands of jobs and over $1 billion in economic impact over the next two years. For the first time in history, the America’s Cup will be able to be seen from shore, creating tremendous public access for spectators as well as drawing large spectator crowds to benefit the port cities hosting America’s Cup events.

“We are very proud that our host cities of San Diego, San Francisco, and Newport, Rhode Island will benefit greatly from hosting America’s Cup events,” said Thompson. “We are working closely with the cities of San Diego, San Francisco, and Newport, Rhode Island to maximize this economic impact.”

Third party sources estimate a $20-million economic impact to San Diego from the event to be staged November 12-20, 2011, with an estimated $72-million economic benefit to Newport, Rhode Island, which will be held in June 2012.  Additionally, the America’s Cup is predicted to deliver an estimated over $1 billion economic impact to the San Francisco Bay area, with more than 8,500 jobs that will be created due to the America’s Cup.

The 34th America’s Cup is the oldest trophy in modern sport and continues to build upon its rich heritage of leading-edge innovation with an event that is designed to showcase the best sailors in the world on the fastest boats.

DryShips and OceanFreight Complete Merger

Friday, November 04, 2011

 

DryShips Inc. (NASDAQ: DRYS) and OceanFreight Inc. (NASDAQ: OCNF) announced today that following approval by OceanFreight's shareholders at a special meeting, the companies have completed the merger and OceanFreight has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of DryShips. Under the terms of the merger agreement, OceanFreight shareholders will be entitled to receive $11.25 in cash and 0.52326 of a share of common stock of Ocean Rig UDW Inc., a global provider of offshore ultra deepwater drilling services, for each share of OceanFreight common stock owned by them.

As a result of the merger, OceanFreight's common shares will cease trading on the NASDAQ Global Market today, and OceanFreight expects to deregister and suspend its reporting obligations under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

American Stock Transfer & Trust Company has been appointed to serve as the agent for payment of the merger consideration to OceanFreight shareholders, and will promptly mail to shareholders instructions on how to surrender their stock certificates and receive payment for their shares. Banks, brokerage firms or other nominees will provide those shareholders who hold their shares in "street name" with their proceeds from the transaction. For more information, shareholders who hold their shares in "street name" should contact their bank, broker or other holder of record, and shareholders of record may contact American Stock Transfer & Trust Company at (877) 248-6417 (toll free). Shareholders of record should wait to receive the letter of transmittal before surrendering their shares.

Offshore Renewable Energy: Servicing North Sea Wind Turbines

Friday, November 04, 2011

A boat with suspension, a giant robotic arm and a vessel resembling a seahorse are just three of the innovative concepts shortlisted by the Carbon Trust as part of a competition to solve the problem of transferring engineers and equipment safely on to wind turbines as far as 300km offshore in wave heights up to around three meters. The project aims to improve the economics of offshore wind by keeping turbines generating electricity in the harshest sea conditions to increase revenues by as much as £3bn for the next generation of the UK’s offshore wind farms.
Through its Offshore Wind Accelerator program, the Carbon Trust is an industry collaboration of eight UK wind farm developers - E.ON, DONG Energy, Mainstream Renewable Power, RWE Innogy, ScottishPower Renewables, SSE Renewables, Statkraft and Statoil – to reduce the costs of offshore wind.
A technically rigorous process was used by the co-funded industry collaboration to select 13 designs from 450 submissions. The technical merit of these 13 concepts suggests they have the best chances of successfully driving down cost. Today’s offshore wind farms are typically less than 25km offshore in relatively benign sea conditions, and consist of up to 100 turbines. Maintenance is possible in boats about 90% of the time when wave heights are up to about 1.5m. The new ‘round three’ offshore wind projects will be as far as 300km offshore in rougher sea conditions, and may consist of as many as 2,500 turbines. At these sites, today’s access systems would only allow transfers about 210 days a year. The aim of the competition is to find concepts that can be commercialized to make transfers possible for a minimum of 300 days a year. Among the 13 designs shortlisted are a giant robotic arm for transferring engineers and equipment to the turbine base; a boat that uses suspension inspired by Paris Dakar-winning rally cars to remain stable for the transfer; a ‘seahorse’ vessel consisting of a towering keel that minimizes movements in the ocean swell; and a giant harbor mother ship that would act as a base for engineers for weeks on end, dispatching smaller daughter craft to access the turbines. Each of the successful applicants to the competition will benefit from funding of up to £100,000 to support the design and development of their concept, as well as technical support from the eight developers in the Offshore Wind Accelerator.  The competition has selected the following thirteen designs, in three categories, to receive funding:

Transfer Systems
To transfer personnel and equipment from vessel to turbine, potentially with motion-compensation
•    Autobrow, South Boats
•    MOTS, Momac GmBH
•    Wind Bridge, Knud Hansen
•    TAS2, BMT Nigel Gee /
    Houlder

Vessels
Vessels for transporting personnel and equipment from permanent bases or mother ships to turbines, incorporating a transfer system
•    Pivoting Deck Vessel, North Sea
    Logistics
•    Nauti-Craft, Nauti-Craft
•    Fjellstrand Vessel, Fjellstrand
•    SES Vessel, Umoe Mandal
•    SolidSea, University of
    Strathclyde
•    TranSPAR, Extreme Ocean
    Innovation

Launch and Recovery Systems
Systems fitted to the permanent bases or mother ships for launching and recovering daughter craft from the sea.
•    Launch & Recovery, Offshore
    Kinetics
•    Z Port, Z Technologies
•    Launch And Recovery System,     Divex

(As published in the October 2011 edition of Maritime Reporter + Engineering News - www.marinelink.com)

House prepares to vote on ship ballast standard.

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Environmentalists tried to rally opposition Thursday to a proposed national policy for cleansing ship ballast water to kill invasive species, contending it is too weak and would pre-empt stronger state and federal rules.
The U.S. House was expected to vote as early as Friday on the measure, which comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to release its own regulations of ship ballast — a leading culprit in the spread of invaders such as zebra and quagga mussels in the Great Lakes and ocean coastal waters.
Sponsored by Rep. Frank LoBiondo, a New Jersey Republican, the bill would adopt a standard proposed by the International Maritime Organization limiting the number of live organisms that would be permitted in ballast water. Vessel operators would have to install technology to meet the standard.
The shipping industry has pushed for a single nationwide policy, saying the current patchwork of more than two dozen state and tribal regulatory systems is unworkable because vessels move constantly from one jurisdiction to another.
Great Lakes shippers are particularly unhappy about New York rules that set live-organism limits 100 times tougher for existing ships than those under the international standard. For newly built ships, New York's standards would be 1,000 times stronger. State officials have postponed the effective date to 2013, giving shippers more time to comply.
The industry says technology to meet the New York requirements doesn't exist. Shippers say the state's strict limits could close the Great Lakes to oceangoing vessels, since they must pass through New York waters to reach the rest of the system.
"While individual state standards and those set by the Clean Water Act function well for factories that are fixed in one location, it simply does not work for vessels engaged in interstate or international commerce," LoBiondo said.
Environmental groups said the bill would prevent EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard, which is also developing ballast rules, from imposing standards tough enough to make sure no more exotic species reach the Great Lakes. About two-thirds of the 185 invasive species in the lakes are believed to have arrived in ballast water. They've done billions in damages and are implicated in a variety of ecological problems, from runaway algae blooms to a shortage of plankton crucial for the aquatic food web.
"This bill is designed to keep the shipping industry off the hook and violates states' right to protect their waters from invasive species," said Marc Smith, senior policy manager for the Naional Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes office.
The measure would allow EPA to strengthen the federal standard beginning in 2016, or earlier if a state requests it, according to LoBiondo's office.
But the wildlife group said the bill would make it "difficult, if not impossible, to add new protections, even if the EPA and other agencies determine that the (international) standard is not doing the job."

JOHN FLESHER, AP Environmental Writer

Updated 12:28 p.m., Friday, November 4, 2011

Good News, Bad News For The Shipping Industry.

A report on Ship Operating Costs from MooreStephens International:

OpCost 2011

29 September 2011

Ship operating costs increase again but insurance costs plummet

International accountant and shipping consultant Moore Stephens says total annual operating costs in the shipping industry increased by an average 2.2 per cent in 2010. This compares with the 2.0 per cent average fall in costs recorded for the previous year, which was the first time since 2002 that operating costs had fallen. All cost categories showed an overall increase this time, with the exception of stores and insurance – with the latter falling by 4.7 per cent overall.

The findings are set out in OpCost 2011, Moore Stephens’ unique ship operating costs benchmarking tool, which reveals that all individual categories of vessel covered by the research, with the exception of handysize product tankers, experienced an increase in total operating costs in 2010, the financial year covered by the survey. Costs for the three main sectors covered – bulkers, tankers and container ships – were all up. The bulker index increased by 5 index points (or 2.9 per cent) on a year-on-year basis, while the tanker index witnessed a two-index-point (1.1 per cent) rise. Meanwhile, the container ship index (with a 2002 base year, as opposed to 2000 for the other two vessel classes) was up three index points, or 1.9 per cent. The corresponding figures in last year’s OpCost report showed falls in the bulker, tanker and container ship indexes of 1, 5 and 13 points respectively.

There was a 3.2 per cent overall increase in 2010 crew costs compared to the 2009 figure, which itself represented the most moderate increase for a number of years. In 2008, the report revealed a 21 per cent increase in this category. Tankers overall experienced increases in crew costs of 2.7 per cent on average, compared to 2.5 per cent in 2009. For bulkers, meanwhile, the overall increase in crew costs was 4.0 per cent, while for container ships it was 2.9 per cent.

For repairs and maintenance, there was an overall increase in costs of 4.5 per cent, compared to the 11.3 per cent decrease recorded for 2009. The biggest increase here was the 8.0 per cent recorded in the container ship category. For bulkers the increase was 7.6 per cent, and for tankers just 0.8 per cent. There were variations in the cost movements experienced within vessel categories. Whereas operators of handysize bulkers spent an average of 12.0 per cent more on repairs and maintenance in 2010, those running capsizes recorded an average increase of just 3.7 per cent. And whereas the average increase in repair and maintenance costs for panamax tankers was 8.4 per cent, operators of aframaxes actually spent 1.3 per cent less than in 2009. In the container vessel sector, meanwhile, increased repair and maintenance spend was fairly consistent across all box ship tonnage sizes covered by the report.

For the second successive year, OpCost reveals a fall in the level of spending on stores – down by 1.0 per cent. Overall, expenditure in this regard was actually up in the bulker sector, by 1.1 per cent, but down in the tanker trades (by 3.4 per cent) and in the container ship market (also by 3.4 per cent).

The insurance category showed the biggest movement in terms of costs – down overall by an average of 4.7 per cent across all vessel types in 2010. For tankers, the insurance spend was down by 7.9 per cent, for container ships by 3.8 per cent, and for bulkers by 2.9 per cent. Panamax bulkers were the only individual class of ship to spend more on insurance in 2010, while the likes of small chemical tankers (10.4 per cent), VLCCs (9.8 per cent) and aframax tankers (9.0 per cent) spent considerably less.

Moore Stephens partner Richard Greiner says: “The movement in operating costs during 2010 is fairly consistent with what we might have expected, bearing in mind the big fall in costs in 2009 and the continuing economic downturn. The average overall increase in crew costs of 3.2 per cent, up one per cent on the figure for 2009, is clearly a matter of continuing concern for owners and operators. But it is modest in comparison to some of the very significant increases recorded in this category in earlier years. The industry must continue to invest in personnel, and it is encouraging to see that it is not only doing so, but also doing so without suffering the huge surge in outgoings that was giving such a lopsided look to operating costs a couple of years ago.

“The 4.5 per cent average increase in expenditure on repairs and maintenance compares with a decrease of more than 11 per cent in 2009, but is significantly down on the 13 per cent-plus increases recorded in both 2007 and 2008. It is also an indicator not only of increases in the costs of labour and raw materials, but of a continuing willingness on the part of the industry to pay for the upkeep of its ships which, with increasingly stringent national and international regulations coming into force covering the likes of corporate and environmental responsibility, is a prerequisite for the continuing ability to trade.

“Spending on stores was down in 2010. This is perhaps something of a surprise, since the category includes lube oils, the price of which continued to rise throughout 2010, along with the cost of the additives which go into its manufacture. But the more widespread fitting of Alpha-type lubricating systems, the fall-off in some areas of trade, and the resort by some to slow steaming, appear to have made their effect felt in this regard.

“Insurance costs were the big mover in this year’s report, with spending down by almost 5 per cent. Conditions in the insurance market were more benign in 2010 than for a number of years. The general increases announced by the P&I clubs for 2011 are in most cases at their lowest levels for more than ten years, reflecting improved figures for 2010 and more optimistic forecasts for 2011 and 2012. The results of OpCost also point to a level of informed discernment in the commercial underwriting sector, with the likes of chemical tankers – notoriously ‘safe’ ships – paying over ten per cent less for their insurance in 2010 than in the previous year. Tighter regulation and stricter port state control should result in fewer accidents and, in an ideal world, will feed through to more favourable insurance rates.

“The global economic outlook remains both bleak and uncertain. Like other industries, shipping will both play a part in its recovery and suffer from its consequences. But the indications from OpCost 2011 are that operating costs are under a measure of control, which could prove crucial over the next couple of years.”

What If Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Happened In Cuban Waters?

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–Several U.S. companies are asking the Obama administration for permission to respond to potential oil spills in Cuban waters, a top offshore drilling regulator said Wednesday, hoping to overcome embargo restrictions that currently limit their ability to do so.

The companies’ requests coincide with a growing concern among oil-industry experts who say the U.S. embargo on Cuba could cripple the ability of spill-containment companies to respond to potential spills that start in Cuban waters but then move to U.S. shores.

Speaking at a congressional hearing Wednesday, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Director Michael Bromwich said several companies have asked the U.S. Commerce Department for licenses that would allow them to use subsea well containment systems and other types of equipment to respond to spills in Cuban waters.

Bromwich said he had “a high level of confidence” the Commerce Department would approve the licenses, in large part because it had already issued separate approvals for oil-spill containment systems and cleanup items. U.S. government agencies “are very much on alert, looking for the licenses [applications] as they come in and my understanding is that they’re giving them very rapid attention and they’re approving them as promptly as they can.”

The administration’s efforts are not without controversy. The chairman of the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R., Colo.), said Wednesday that he is concerned “this administration will weaken the U.S. embargo on Cuba.”

Earlier in the week, the head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to do more to prevent Cuba’s oil-drilling plans. “This scheme endangers U.S. security and environmental interests, and will enrich the Cuban regime,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), a Cuban-born American, said.

Many environmental and oil-industry experts have taken a different approach and have urged the administration to give broad flexibility to U.S. companies that are equipped to respond to spills.

They contend Cuba will pursue oil exploration, regardless of whether the U.S. disapproves, so the U.S. should simply prepare for possible accidents.

Cuba’s offshore drilling plans get under way in coming months when Spanish company Repsol YPF SA (REPYY, REP.MC) starts to conduct exploratory drilling off the country’s northern coast. Repsol is transporting a Chinese-built rig to be used for the exploration work.

Repsol has voluntarily agreed to allow U.S. officials to inspect the rig before it enters Cuban waters. The company has also agreed to comply with U.S. drilling standards.

-By Tennille Tracy, Dow Jones Newswires

Mercury Marine's Report/Testimony on Ethanol to Congress

There was a House Committee hearing on the unintended consequences of increasing Ethanol in fuel  from 10 to 15 percent. I would be willing to bet no one in the news covered this at all. The following is a summary from a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (DOE). Mercury Marine was contracted to conduct these tests, and demonstrates some disturbing effects of E15 fuel. Thes tests were exclusively performed on marine engines, and I hope that similar tests are performed on other outdoor power equipment.

The abridged version of the results are that two of three E15 test engines did not finish the test. All three of the non-ethanol control engines finished with no problems.The two-stroke E15 test engine was damaged so badly that Mercury Marine could not determine the cause of failure.

I feel that this information wasn't given enough attention in the hearing. The two stroke engine that was damaged beyond repair retails for approximately $15,000. Nobody mentioned this at the hearing. More attention was given to the testimonies of the EPA and the various individuals representing the Oil, Gas and Ethanol industries.

Click here to view the complete report. The Summary follows:

Objective:

The objective of this work was to understand the effects of running a 15% ethanol blend on outboard marine engines during 300 hours of wide-open throttle (WOT) endurance – a typical outboard marine engine durability test. For the three engine families evaluated, one test engine each was endurance tested on E15 fuel with emissions tests conducted on both E0 and E15 fuel, while a second control engine was emissions and endurance tested on E0 fuel for each engine family.

Summary of Results:

Results are based on a sample population of one engine per test fuel. As such, these results are not considered statistically significant, but may serve as an indicator of potential issues. More testing would be required to better understand the potential effects of E15.

9.9HP Carbureted Four-Stroke:

• The E15 engine exhibited variability of HC emissions at idle during end-of-endurance emissions tests, which was likely caused by lean misfire.

o Both the E0 control engine and E15 test engine ran leaner at idle and low speed operation at the end of endurance testing compared with operation at the start of the test.

o The trend of running lean at idle coupled with the additional enleanment from the E15 fuel caused the E15 engine to have poor run quality (intermittent misfire or partial combustion events) when operated on E15 fuel after 300 hours of endurance.

o CO emissions were reduced when using E15 fuel due to the leaner operation, as expected for this open-loop controlled engine.

• The E15 engine exhibited reduced hardness on piston surfaces based on post-test teardown analysis.

o The exhaust gas temperature increased 17°C at wide open throttle as a result of the leaner operation when using E15 fuel. Higher combustion temperatures may have caused observed piston hardness reductions. Lack of pre-test hardness measurements prevented a conclusive assessment.

• Several elastomeric components on the E15 engine showed signs of deterioration compared with the E0 engine.

o Affected components were exposed to E15 fuel for approximately 2 months; signs of deterioration were evident.

300HP Four-Stroke Supercharged Verado:

• The E15 engine failed 3 exhaust valves close to the end of the endurance test.

o Metallurgical analysis showed that the valves developed high cycle fatigue cracks due excessive metal temperatures.

• The pistons on the E15 engine showed indications of higher operating temperatures compared to the E0 engine’s pistons as evidenced by the visual difference in carbon deposits.

• The E15 engine generated HC+NOx values in excess of the Family Emissions Limit (FEL) when operated on E15 fuel, but did not exceed that limit when operated on E0 emissions certification fuel.

o The primary contributor to this increase in exhaust emissions was NOx due to enleanment caused by the oxygenated fuel.

o CO emissions were reduced when using E15 fuel due to leaner operation, as expected for this open-loop controlled engine.

200HP EFI 2.5L Two-Stroke:

• The 200 EFI two-stroke engine showed no signs of exhaust emissions deterioration differences due to the fuel.

o The E15 fuel caused the engine to run lean resulting in reduced HC and CO emissions. NOx was of little concern on this type of engine since NOx accounted for less than 2% of the total regulated HC+NOx emissions.

• The E15 engine failed a rod bearing at 256 hours of endurance, which prevented completion of the 300 hour durability test.

o Root cause of the bearing failure was not determined due to progressive damage.

o More testing would be necessary to understand the effect of ethanol on oil dispersion and lubrication in two-stroke engines where the fuel and oil move through the crankcase together.

4.3L V6 EFI Four-Stroke Catalyzed Sterndrive:

• Since E15 fuel was readily available in the test facility and an engine equipped with exhaust catalysts was on the dynamometer, emissions tests were conducted on a 4.3L V6 sterndrive engine to better understand the immediate impacts of ethanol on this engine family.

o At rated speed and load (open-loop fuel control) E15 caused exhaust gas temperatures to increase by 20°C on average and the catalyst temperatures to increase by about 30°C.

o More rapid aging of the catalyst system occur due to the elevated catalyst temperature when considering the high load duty cycle typically experienced by marine engine applications.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

Several issues were discovered in this study from an exhaust emissions and an engine durability standpoint as a result of running E15 fuel in outboard marine engines. Run quality concerns were also identified as a result of the lean operation on the carbureted engine.

Additional investigation is necessary to more fully understand the observed effects and to extrapolate them to all types of marine engines over broader operating conditions. Effects on operation at part load, transient acceleration/deceleration, cold start, hot restart, and other driveability-related concerns need to be evaluated. This test program was mainly testing for end-of-life durability failures, which would not likely be the first issues experienced by the end users. A customer would likely be affected by run quality/driveability issues or materials compatibility/corrosion issues before durability issues. The wide range of technology used in marine engines due to the wide range of engine output will complicate this issue (Mercury Marine produces engines from 2.5HP-1350HP).

More testing is needed to understand how ethanol blends affect lubrication systems in two-stroke engines that have fuel and oil moving through the crankcase together. Crankcase oil dispersion is the only mechanism by which two-stroke engines of this architecture provide lubrication at critical interfaces such as bearings and cylinder walls. Ethanol may have an effect on the dispersion or lubricity of the oil.

A better understanding of how long term storage affects ethanol blends in marine fuel systems would require more real-world testing. Marine vessels often go through long periods of storage that could affect the fuel systems given the fact that the ethanol portion can absorb water when exposed, especially in humid areas near saltwater.

Port of Oakland Operations Halted by Longshoremen.

This video from KGO-TV in Oakland is pretty amazing, especially considering the Occupy Oakland Movement (A part of the Occupy Wall Street Movement) is planning a "blockade" in the city. I can only imagine the traffic headaches this will create. As Mr Roman mentions, this affects ports up and down the West Coast. So if you're on the West Coast near a major port, this could be coming soon!

By Tomas Roman

OAKLAND, Calif. (KGO) -- Dock workers at the Port of Oakland refused to unload ships that are loaded with what they call explosive contents. At least two terminals at the port were closed Monday night because of the threat. It is an extra challenge for the port already preparing a possible blockade by Occupy Oakland on Wednesday and the backup is extensive.

The longshoreman are refusing to move any containers at certain terminals because they say refrigerated containers that were improperly serviced in Vietnam have already exploded in Vietnam, China, and Brazil. Some of those containers have been found in Oakland and other West Coast ports.
Photos were taken in Vietnam of one of the five refrigerated containers that exploded at a port there last Friday. Three dock workers were killed and 16 were injured. An Oakland longshoreman got hold of the photos, but fears losing his job if he speaks on camera. He learned that some of the same types of containers had arrived here in Oakland Monday morning.

The longshoreman said, "At 8 o'clock this morning we got the word that the containers that were over at SSA were actually some of the containers that were on the list that weren't supposed to get here."

There was a list of refrigerated containers that had been serviced in Vietnam with an unstable form of freon according to the longshoreman's union. They say that's why they exploded.
"They have apparently taken at least three lives and may have injured many more people," said ILWU spokesperson Craig Merrilees.
They were supposed to be taken out before coming to the U.S. The ILWU says they were not and thousands of them are either in ports or out on the water.
"There are potentially thousands of containers being shipped around the world, some that have ended up on docks here in Oakland, they're potentially lethal," said Merrilees.
There are also reports of refrigerated containers exploding in China and Brazil since Thursday. Hundreds of longshoremen on Monday refused to unload any ships or move any containers until those improperly serviced in Vietnam are removed.
"I think we know that at least two terminals, both the SSA and TraPac terminal have been shut down," said Merrilees.
The longshoreman who wanted to remain anonymous said, "Until we get it resolved were not going to work."
If the longshoremen don't work, neither do the truckers. With the terminals closed dozens of trucks line the roads of the port unable to load or unload.
A trucker ABC7 spoke to also wanted anonymity. He said, "I was supposed to turn in my empty containers in and then take loads out and I couldn't do anything." When asked how long he had been there stuck in line, he said, "All day."
So far the U.S. Coast Guard has isolated at least 13 of these problem containers, but they're looking at the same issue in Tacoma, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and in Long Beach.
The Pacific Maritime Association, the longshoreman's union and the shippers are all trying to get together to work this issue out and get the cargo moving.

(Copyright ©2011 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

10000 Ships to Use LNG Propulsion by 2020?

This report comes from from MEC Intelligence. The impact of this suggests phenomenal growth (over 9000% growth) in LNG use for maritime propulsion. This growth over the next eight years could very well change the face of marine engineering.

LNG in marine propulsion: A Disruption to the Maritime Industry?

According a new forecast by MEC intelligence nearly 10,000 vessels could be adopting LNG propulsion by 2020 triggering a huge growth in the market. Companies in all aspects of the maritime value chain– oil majors, terminals, ports, bunker suppliers, service companies, component producers, vessel owners and charterers – need to rethink their offerings.”

A ground breaking report published by the maritime cleantech market insight firm MEC Intelligence estimates more than 5% of the world fleet will adopt LNG propulsion by 2020 a huge growth considering less than 100 vessels presently.

Best Option for Newbuilds

Strict environment regulations requiring the reduction of SOx, NOx to 0.1% in ECA zone in 2015 and 0.5% globally in 2020 will stimulate demand for technologies that can eliminate or reduce emissions from vessel exhausts. The key compliance options available are either adoption of new types of fuel – low sulphur MGO or LNG – or using scrubber technology on the existing HFO fuel.

The LNG propulsion technology will potentially gain massive traction in the new build segment owing to significantly lower operation costs leading to a lower total ownership cost over the ship’s lifecycle. The total ownership cost over ship’s lifecycle for a new build LNG propelled vessel (depending on vessel type and geography) is expected to be up to 40% lower as compared to that of a fuel oil and MGO propelled vessel.

The low cost are attributed to the abundant availability and competitive prices of LNG compared to crude. Even though, the price of LNG is expected to increase with the pickup in natural gas demand in power sector it is not likely to be significant considering the new supplies from unconventional gas reserves.

Further, considering the often more than 25 year long life cycle of vessels, LNG adoption makes the ship essentially future proof in terms of further regulatory driven emission reductions in SOx, NOx, and Particulate Matter approaching in the horizon.

Huge Long Term Impact Albeit a Slow Start

Better Economics combined with development of building capacity, recent advancements in engine and fuel gas technologies are leading to a pick-up in the interest in LNG propulsion. Although availability of infrastructure and standards is a limiting factor, yet, this is expected to be only a short term inhibitors. An analysis of the existing LNG supply and terminal infrastructure shows ample availability of the fuel to be able to supply and bunkering infrastructure can be developed rapidly to meet the growing fleet.

With the development of infrastructure and IMO ratifications the fleet is expected to reach up to 1,000 vessels by 2015 but pick up rapidly to grow up to 10 times in the subsequent five years as the technology, infrastructure, and economics stack equivocally in favour of LNG propulsion. However, in case infrastructure and regulation are delayed the penetration is estimated to be significant lower yet still significant.

Unique Opportunity to Differentiate and Shape the Market

The report concludes that the adoption of LNG in vessels will call for changes in all aspects of the value chain – oil majors, terminals, ports, bunker suppliers, service companies, components suppliers, owners and charterers – requiring companies to rethink their offerings and align to a new reality sooner or later. It is one of the unique times when companies can move fast to take advantage of a new technology to differentiate themselves in the largely ‘commodity’ market for equipment and services.

About MEC Intelligence

MEC Intelligence is a leading market insight firm focused on growth in the maritime, energy, and cleantech sectors. The company brings together its unique data assets, deep experience in supporting strategic and market business development, and broad industry knowledge to develop objective perspective on industry developments and identify growth opportunities for the entire maritime, energy, and cleantech ecosystem.

How Significant is One Company?

It is not often that I write about a specific shipping company, however today I feel that this one is worth mentioning. There is more to this article than just one shipping company, there is a more important issue for people to think about. In a time where it is commonplace for companies to be "delisted" by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)  or the NASDAQ there is significance to the fact Horizon Lines was delisted from the NYSE.

What is it about Horizon that makes this so significant? The short answer is the Jones Act of 1920. Horizon lines is one of the largest Jones Act cargo carriers in business today. What the Jones Act does is restrict domestic cargo to U.S. manufactured, U.S. owned and U.S. crewed vessels for interstate cargo.

Horizon shares traded (at the time of writing this article) in the .24-.25 range, whereas in January, shares were trading at 52 week highs of 5.95. While I don’t believe this company is in serious trouble, its stock price has put its future in question.

If a foreign company were to come in and purchase this company, it would be one less Jones Act Carrier to become history. (Remember must be U.S. owned) This would mean, assets would be sold or moved and the remaining Jones Act Carriers would pick up the slack. Demand for shipping would go up, because there would be less supply. Prices would go up for shipping, and then eventually tacked on to the products each of us buys.

The government isn't helping either. Refer back to the blog article regarding the implementation of fuel usage fees on October 19, 2011. With the expansion of the definition of U.S. Waterways in the proposed fuel usage fees could in fact change the scope of the Jones Act.

The bottom lie is that if Horizon lines disappears from the list of Jones Act Carriers, it wouldn’t be the end of the shipping industry within the United States. However, there are many overlapping factors that get overlooked. If the operating costs are increased for carriers, companies that are struggling could be forced out of business. Because of the economic crisis, our elected officials are scratching their heads trying to uncover more funding. A fuel usage fee, or expansion of areas covered could give the government more funds to resolve the debt crisis. When a congressman, or senator or even the president says "this will provide millions if not billions" I submit that they have not researched the overarching effect to companies like Horizon who are struggling to come back from the last crisis caused by inappropriate legislation.

I'm thinking about this stuff, are you?

K.Swanson

British Petroleum is Back!

By Ryan Tracy And Angel Gonzalez, The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—BP PLC on Wednesday got permission to drill its first well in the Gulf of Mexico since the company’s massive oil spill there last year.

The decision was expected after the U.S. Interior Department approved the company’s broader plan for four exploratory wells in the Gulf late last week. It represents another milestone in the U.K. oil company’s efforts to return to the good graces of federal regulators since it lost control of a deep-water well after a blowout in April 2010. The incident killed 11 workers and caused the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

The Interior Department said the company had met new safety requirements put in place since the spill and had adhered to voluntary standards that went beyond the agency’s requirements.

The approval comes a day after the U.K. oil company reported quarterly earnings of $5.3 billion, surpassing analyst expectations and boosting hopes that the company was emerging with renewed strength from one of the darkest—and costliest—periods of its history. The company had to shed billions of dollars in assets in order to pay for spill costs, while facing the wrath of U.S. legislators, environmental activists and the public.

“We have now reached a definite turning point,” Chief Executive Bob Dudley said in a statement Tuesday. “Our operations are regaining momentum and we are facing the future with great confidence.”

BP said Wednesday’s permit came “after several months of hard work developing and implementing our new drilling standards and sharing those standards with industry partners and regulators.”

The well is located about 246 miles south of Lafayette, La., and is part of BP’s Kaskida prospect. It will be drilled in 6,034 feet of water.

To demonstrate it could contain a blowout at the new well, BP contracted with the Marine Well Containment Co., an industry consortium formed after last year’s spill. The company maintains a “capping stack” that can be scrambled to the scene of a spill and is designed to contain an out-of-control well in deep water.

Environmental groups have questioned whether the new containment system can fulfill those claims, but federal regulators have endorsed it.

“This permit was approved only after thorough well design, blowout preventer, and containment capability reviews,” Michael Bromwich, director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, said Wednesday.

BP, one of the largest leaseholders in the U.S. Gulf and until the spill one of the most successful wildcatters there, can now join the flock of big oil and gas companies returning to the oil-rich area. On Tuesday, Hess Corp. said it was moving forward with the $2.3 billion development of the Tubular Bells deep-water oil and gas project in the Gulf—the helm of which it took over from BP in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

The Interior Department said it has approved permits for 46 deep-water wells since February, when a company first demonstrated it could contain a deep-water spill.
(c) 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc