Mitigating the Environmental Footprint of Towed

Streamer Seismic Surveys Part I: Gaseous emission from the internal combustion engine and what methods Polarcus has in order to mitigate its impact

Revised February 2011

Author: Peter Zickerman & Philip Fontana

Page 2 of 43

Table of Contents

Definition of acronyms: 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

1. Environmental impacts of increased international Shipping ....................................................................... 6

2. The Emission Matrix: marine towed seismic acquisition ........................................................................... 10

The Seismic Survey Vessel 11

Environmental Excellence 12

Key drivers to improve the environmental performance 13

Benefits 13

Considerations in Vessel Design 13

Emission Index Modeling 13

3. Emission Weighting ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Polarcus Emission reporting 16

2010 Fleet Emissions Footprint 16

The Atmosphere 17

Exhaust emission 17

ECA Emission Control Areas 18

Atmospheric impacts 18

Diesel Engine Exhaust Composition 19

Polarcus Emission Statistics 2010 20

4. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) ..................................................................................................................................... 21

Carbon monoxide (CO) 21

Polarcus COx Emission reduction 21

ULSTEIN X-BOW® hull design advantages 22

ULSTEIN X-BOW® - Slender Hull (Fig 13) 22

Water planes – Heavy seas 24

Seismic COx Emission reduction – Wide Tow System 24

5. Nitrogen oxides (NOx)..................................................................................................................................... 27

NOx Emissions Reduction Methods 28

Polarcus: Primary NOx Emission Reduction Methods 28

Combustion process 29

Polarcus: Secondary NOx Emission Reduction Methods 30

Compact Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 30

6. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) ......................................................................................................................................... 34

Sulfur in the combustion process 34

How does Polarcus minimize its SOx emission? 35

IMO Sulfur Limits 35

Page 3 of 43

Polarcus SOx Emission Reduction 36

7. Soot (smoke) ...................................................................................................................................................... 37

Particle / Soot / Smoke Emissions 37

8. Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................ 38

Polarcus fleet has ~ 540% less gaseous emission than competition 38

9. International Regulations ................................................................................................................................. 40

Revised MARPOL Annex III adopted at IMO environment meeting 40

Revised MARPOL Annex III to prevent pollution from packaged goods adopted 40

Revised MARPOL Annex V text approved 40

Ballast water management systems approved 40

ECA Emission Control Area proposal put forward to next session for adoption 41

Recycling of ships 42

Annex IV special area proposal approved 42

Revised IAPP form supplement adopted 42

PSSA for Strait of Bonifacio to be further considered at next session 42

Implementation of the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol 43

Page 4 of 43

Definition of acronyms:

AIEM: Advanced Internal Engine Modifications

AMVER: Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue System

BIEM: Basic Internal Engine Modifications

BWMS: Ballast Water Management Systems

BWRG: Review Group on Ballast Water Treatment Technologies

COx: Carbon Oxides

CO: Carbon Monoxide

CO2: Carbon Dioxide

CxHy: Hydrocarbons

DNV: Det Norske Veritas

DWI: Direct Water Injection

ECA: Emission Control Area

EIAPP: Emission Indexing Approval

EU: European Union

EGR: Exhaust Gas Re-circulation

FWE: Fuel/Water Emulsification

GESAMP: Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environment Protection

GHG: Green House Gasses

HAM: Humid Air Motors

HFO: Heavy Fuel Oil

H2: Hydrogen

H2SO3: Sulfurous Acid

H2SO4: Sulfuric Acid

IAPP: International Air Pollution Prevention

IMDG: International Maritime Dangerous Goods

IMO: International Maritime Organization (UN Agency – international regulatory body)

MARPOL: Marine Pollution (IMO)

MDO: Marine Diesel Oil

MEPC: Marine Environment Protection Committee

MGO: Marine Gas Oil

NO2: Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx: Nitrogen Oxides

O2: Oxygen

OECD: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PCA: Polycyclic Aromatics

PSSA: Particularly Sensitive Sea Area

SCR: Selective Catalytic Reduction

SNEF: Specific NOx Emission Factor

SFOC: Specific Fuel Oil Consumption

SO2: Sulfur Dioxide

SOx: Sulfur Oxides

TDC: Top Dead Center

Page 5 of 43

Introduction

The term “acquisition footprint” is well understood by many acquisition, processing, and interpretation

geophysicists to be artifacts in a seismic image resulting from some aspect(s) of the acquisition

configuration. We‟d like to submit that the term can also be extended to mean the potential

environmental impact a seismic survey may have in the immediate survey area. In the same way that

particulars of the acquisition design can be analyzed to predict artifacts in the processed seismic image,

the acquisition methods and technologies selected for a particular survey design can be analyzed to

predict potential environmental disturbances.

Of particular interest in many parts of the world are the contributing components to the environmental

footprint of marine towed streamer surveys and what steps can be taken to mitigate the impact of each.

Unlike land seismic surveys where activities like line clearing, road making, shot hole drilling, vibrator pad

marks, and camp sites, to name a few, can leave a visible “footprint” requiring remedial activities after the

seismic crew has left the survey area, towed streamer surveys rarely, if ever, leave any visible evidence of

the crew ever being in the area. That does not mean, however, that marine towed streamers surveys

cannot leave lingering reminders of their presence in an area. Those reminders can be classified as

emissions to air and water that can potentially have both short term and longer term impacts.

Author: Peter Zickerman & Philip Fontana

Page 6 of 43

1. Environmental impacts of increased international Shipping

Global CO2 emissions from maritime shipping (estimated based on sales of bunker) almost tripled since

1925. The corresponding SO2 emissions more than tripled over the same period. The majority of today‟s

ship emissions occur in the northern hemisphere, within a well-defined system of international sea routes.

Fig 1: Vessel Traffic densities based on AMVER data for the month of April 2010.

Fig 2: Seawater temperature averages show signs of change over time; some studies argue that this is a result of

global climate change.

Page 7 of 43

International Maritime Shipping: Environmental Impacts of Increased Activity Levels

It is estimated that 80% of the maritime traffic is in the northern hemisphere, with 32% in the Atlantic,

29% in the Pacific, 14% in the Indian and 5% in the Mediterranean Oceans. The remaining 20% of the

traffic in the southern hemisphere is approximately equally distributed among the Atlantic, the Pacific and

the Indian Oceans.

Emission of pollutants to the air from a ship is often chemically transformed to secondary species and

mixes with ambient air.

Most scenarios for the near future, the next 10-20 years, indicate that regulations and measures to abate

emissions will be outweighed by an increase in traffic, resulting in a global increase in emissions.

Recent studies indicate that the emissions by ships that are contributing to global anthropogenic

emissions correspond to about:

- CO2: 2% - 3% (perhaps 4%),

- NOx 10% - 15%,

- SO2: 4% - 9%

Ship emissions of NO2, CO2, SO2, primary particles, heavy metals and waste cause problems in coastal

areas and harbors with heavy traffic. Particularly high increases of short-lived pollutants (e.g. NO2) are

found close to regions with heavy traffic e.g. around the North Sea and the English Channel. Model

studies tend to find NO2 concentrations to be more than doubled along the major world shipping routes.

Absolute increases in surface ozone (O3) due to ship emissions are pronounced during summer months,

with large increases again found in regions with heavy traffic. Increased ozone levels in the atmosphere

are also of concern with regard to climate change, since ozone is an important greenhouse gas.

Fig 3: Relative contribution to ozone concentrations at the surface due to emissions from ships

Page 8 of 43

Formation of sulphate and nitrate resulting from sulfur and nitrogen emissions causes acidification that

might be harmful to ecosystems in regions with low buffering capacity, and lead to harmful health effects.

Coastal countries in western Europe, western North America and the Mediterranean are substantially

affected by ship emissions in this way.

The large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the

major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane

from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. (Reductions in methane lifetimes

due to shipping-based NOx emissions vary between 1.5% and 5% in different calculations, The effect on

concentrations of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and O3) and aerosols have differing impacts on the

radiation balance of the earth-atmosphere system. Ship-derived aerosols also cause a significant indirect

impact, through changes in cloud microphysics.

Figure 4. Estimates of world fleet CO2 emissions 1990-2050

In summary, most studies so far indicate that ship emissions actually lead to a net global cooling. This net

global cooling effect is not being experienced in other transport sectors. However, it should be stressed

that the uncertainties with this conclusion are large, in particular for indirect effects, and global

temperature is only a first measure of the extent of climate change in any event.

The contribution to climate change from the different components also acts at different temporal and

spatial scales. A long-lived well-mixed component like CO2 has global effects that last for centuries.

Shorter-lived species like ozone and aerosols might have effects that are strongly regional and last for only

a few days to weeks. The net cooling effect that so far has been found primarily affects ocean areas, and

thus does not help alleviate negative impacts of global warming for human habitats.

Projections up to year 2020 indicate growth in maritime fuel consumption and emissions in the range of

30%. However, if more weight is given to the large increase in emissions during the last few years, even

larger increases in ship emissions could take place in the coming decades. By 2050, CO2 emissions from

maritime shipping could reach two to three times current levels.

Page 9 of 43

Figure 5. Estimates of CO2 and SO2 emissions from ships Including the fishing and military fleet, 1925-2002

More specifically, most scenarios for the next 10 to 20 years indicate that the effects of regulations and

other policy measures will be outweighed by increases in traffic, leading to a significant global increase in

emissions from shipping. Global emission scenarios for non-ship (land-based) sources also indicate that

the relative contribution to pollutants from shipping could increase, especially in regions like the Arctic

and South-East Asia, where substantial increases in ship traffic are expected.

Limiting the sulfur content in fuel in the North Sea and English Channel seems to be an efficient measure

to reduce sulphate deposition in nearby coastal regions. Several technologies also exist to reduce

emissions from ships beyond what is currently legally required (e.g. by the use of scrubbers and filters to

capture emissions from the exhaust gases and by the use of low-NOx engines).

(Reference OECD 2010: Globalisation, Transport and the Environment)

Figure 6. Energy-use in the transport sector

Page 10 of 43

2. The Emission Matrix: marine towed seismic acquisition

In simple terms, foreign materials that can be introduced into the local environment during the course of

a marine towed streamer survey can be categorized in terms of four major types of emissions; solid, fluid,

gaseous, and acoustic. In turn, a marine towed streamer seismic crew employs two major technology

components that are capable of producing these emissions: the survey vessel and the applied seismic

acquisition technologies.

Figure 7: Four main categories of emissions and associated sources

With this designation of by-products and their sources we can configure an emission matrix in the style of

a simple risk dashboard that indicates the potential risk of each type of emission from each source. In

Figure 5, we have displayed our interpretation of the towed streamer emission matrix with our view of the

potential risk associated with each source. Using this emission matrix as a guide, we can then examine the

technology components of each source, vessel and seismic, with respect to a particular emission type and,

more importantly, identify mitigation measures that can reduce each by-product.

Page 11 of 43

Figure 8: Emission Matrix: Pre-Mitigation.

Risk level red = high, yellow = moderate, green = low

The Seismic Survey Vessel

Any ship on the ocean generates solid, fluid, gaseous, and acoustic by-products during the course

of normal operations. Recently, regional governments and international maritime organizations

have begun to increase regulations and publish guidelines on the types and volumes of these

emissions. A recent study published by the European commission suggested that shipping

pollutants were reducing the average lifespan of every European by several months with

particulates of soot and the compounds of sulfur and nitrogen being some of the main culprits.

As a result the European Union is planning Europe‟s first low-emissions marine zones, designed

to cut pollution from shipping in certain designated areas of the North Sea, English Channel and

the Baltic Sea from 2015. Australia, which is very sensitive to the introduction of invasive species

both on land and sea, has adopted very strict regulations on bilge and ballast water discharges.

Given that seismic survey vessels, by the nature of their markets, frequently transit to and from

various different ocean areas during the course of their yearly activities, they will increasingly

intersect the growing list of maritime environmental regulations in different regions. With that in

mind we suggest that the emission matrix for the vessel will have the following components and

associated risk levels.

Page 12 of 43

Table 1: Pre-mitigation Emission Risk Matrix for Seismic Vessels

Environmental performance in the maritime industry is under increasing scrutiny. From

inception Polarcus has worked very closely with Ulstein Design the Marine Naval Architects and

Det Norske Veritas (DNV) in a tailor made methodology (Figure 9) allowing the Company to

meet present requirements, go beyond compliance and anticipate future challenges.

The considerations for pioneering the Environmental agenda, covers all aspects of a vessel‟s

lifecycle from design through to operation and decommissioning, enhancing business

performance whilst improving our environmental footprint.

Environmental Excellence

Environmental performance in the maritime industry is under increasing scrutiny. An

Environmental Excellence methodology allows the organisation to meet present requirements,

go beyond compliance and anticipate future challenges. It is imperative to covering all aspects of

a vessel‟s lifecycle from design through to operation and decommissioning. Polarcus has a

tailored approach to best environmental practice in shipping of which the reasoning‟s behind this

can be summed up as per below:

Acustic

Radiated machinery noise

Thruster noise

Propeller cavitations

Echo sounders

Gaseous

Engine exhaust

Incinerator exhaust

Chemicals

Fluid

Fuel

Bilge water

Ballast water

Streamer Fluid

Lube oil

Sewage

Hydraulics

Solid

Galley waste

General waste

Page 13 of 43

Key drivers to improve the environmental performance

- Sustainability & Corporate Responsibility

- Growing public awareness and increased focus on environmental performance of the maritime

industry

- Zero tolerance for spills and non-compliance incidents

- Tighter and better enforced international, national and local environmental rules and regulations

- Financial considerations

- Stakeholder expectations (shareholders, regulators, charterers) and reputation

- Business potential and competitive advantages

Benefits

- Minimization of risks and optimization of costs

- Improved performance and cost-effectiveness

- Demonstration of business integrity, responsibility and innovation

- Benchmarking performance across the organization and maritime industry

- Branding and differentiation from competitors

Considerations in Vessel Design

- Use of Materials in Design and Construction

- Energy Efficiency and Emissions Reduction

- Pollution Prevention Technologies

- Environmental Performance Monitoring

- Environmental Risk Management

- Inventory of Hazardous Materials

Emission Index Modeling

From the outset Polarcus was looking to reduce its environmental footprint. The overall hydrodynamic

efficiency of the vessel and seismic spread has a major impact on vessel fuel efficiency and thus the

volume of exhaust emissions emitted during the course of the seismic operation. Det Norske Veritas

(DNV), the international maritime classification society, has derived a quantitative emission model based

upon a ship‟s hull design, fuel type, propulsion efficiency, and exhaust mitigation for a given work load to

compute an emission index where the corresponding volumes of COx, NOx, and SOx can be compared

for different vessels performing the same work. For marine towed streamer surveys the work load can be

computed by examining the hydrodynamic performance of each element in the acquisition spread.

Page 14 of 43

Figure 9: DNV Emission Index Model (Longva and Nyhus, 2008, DNV Report no. 2008-0704)

The emission indexing model (Figure 9) allowed Polarcus during the design phase to evaluate a towed

streamer configuration‟s potential exhaust emissions and examine ways to mitigate both volume and

composition using some of the technologies described above. In addition, the model also allowed an

assessment of the volume and content of exhaust emissions relative to a deliverable unit of seismic data.

Polarcus is committed to reducing the GHG emissions footprint of its own operations through the use of

energy efficiency measures, emission reduction technologies and sound procurement routines. The model

has been replaced by the Det Norske Veritas Vessel Emissions Qualification Statement DNV 20100608-

02-QS, of which Polarcus was the first to receive in the offshore industry. The Qualification Statement

verifies that the following operational data that is measured by Polarcus is true and correct:

• Engine Specification

− Power consumption by propulsion and compressor units

− Power consumed by all other loads and losses

− Power produced, power plant efficiency and utilization

• Fuel specifications

− Sulfur content %

− Carbon content %

− Density

• Fuel consumption

• NOx emissions

− Per power plant, daily and monthly (kg)

− NOx reduction, daily and monthly (kg)

− Urea consumption

• SOx emissions

• CO2 emissions

Page 15 of 43

3. Emission Weighting

When estimating an emission index, it is recommended that the different emissions are weighted in order

to calculate a single aggregated index. One way of doing this weighting is to compare the external cost

(social costs such as health, materials, etc) of each pollutant and calculate an external cost per work as a

total index. Several EU-projects (e.g. EXTERNE, 2005; REALISE, 2005; AEAT, 2005) have estimated

the external costs of various pollutants. The results from these studies are used in this work and estimates.

Different pollutants have different impacts locally and globally. As ships operate both in coastal and deep

waters, the emission impact will be different depending on geographical trading area and its attributes

(weather and sea condition, depth, fetch, etc). For CO2 a base line value of USD 30 per ton may be used

in 2010, based on a base value USD 30 per ton in 2001 and the best fit to the mean values which is a

2.4% increase in the marginal social cost of emissions each year (The Impacts and Costs of Climate

Change, 2005). For NOx and SOx the figures are taken from Holland et al (2005) which have assessed the

external cost of emissions in sea areas in Europe. For deep sea emissions the cost will be lower, which is

not taken into account in this report. Table 2 shows the values used.

Table 2: Assumed and regulated external costs for pollutants

Pollutant (G) External marginal cost (cG)

CO2 USD 30 /ton

NOx USD 6250 /ton

SOx USD 9700 /ton

Page 16 of 43

Polarcus Emission reporting

Polarcus received in Q2 2010 a Det Norske Veritas Vessel Emissions Qualification Statement. This

qualifies the Polarcus emissions reporting methodology and accuracy of data, verifying the company‟s

ability to predict the exhaust emissions footprint for any project and then, post-project, to subsequently

provide actual emissions measurements. The results provide Polarcus with a real time ability to optimize

operational performance during the course of a survey in order to reduce the overall emissions footprint.

The data will also prove valuable to clients who wish to document or report specific emissions

measurements such as NOx gases, or who are seeking to meet specific emissions reduction targets. Below

is an example of the open emission reporting policy that the company applies, as well as confirmation of

the credibility of the findings.

2010 Fleet Emissions Footprint

USD 6,860,000* = Total Emission Reduction* vs. IMO ECA / theoretically reduced external cost of

emission for the Polarcus fleet in operation: Jan – Dec 2010

* Extract from joint DNV and Ulstein International Report No. 2009-1540-01-001, entitled Emission Indexing

Polarcus will use where available low sulfur marine gas oil to limit the emissions of SOx compounds.

Polarcus received in Q2 2010 a Det Norske Veritas Vessel Emissions Qualification Statement. This

qualifies the Polarcus emissions reporting methodology and accuracy of data, verifying the company‟s

ability to predict the exhaust emissions footprint for any project and then, post-project, to subsequently

provide actual emissions measurements. The results provide Polarcus with a real time ability to optimize

operational performance during the course of a survey in order to reduce the overall emissions footprint.

The data will also prove valuable to clients who wish to document or report specific emissions

measurements such as NOx gases, or who are seeking to meet specific emissions reduction targets.

Polarcus Fleet Jan – Dec 2010

Page 17 of 43

The Atmosphere

The atmosphere of Earth is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by Earth's

gravity. The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation, warming the

surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and

night. Air contains roughly (by volume)

- 78.09% nitrogen

- 20.95% oxygen

- 0.93% argon

- 0.039% carbon dioxide

- And small amounts of other gases.

- Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor

Exhaust emission

Exhaust emission control has become an important factor in the marine and offshore industry in recent

years. The importance of this dimension will increase further in the years ahead as marine environmental

regulations become tighter and public awareness of „green‟ issues continues to grow. This document will

show the proposed international and local U.S. regulations and when each will enter into force as well as

the effect of the choice of diesel engines and operational excellence and efficiencies. The document will

also show the typical composition of diesel engine exhaust with discussions around the environmentally

harmful elements. It will also introduce what Polarcus is doing and had done in order to reduce its

environmental footprint.

Page 18 of 43

ECA Emission Control Areas

Figure 10: ECA: Emission Control Areas: Left active. Right: Assumed ECS in near future

Under Annex VI (2008), the maximum sulfur level in fuel will be progressively lowered for an ECA as

follows:

I. 1.00% on and after 1 July 2010; and

II. 0.10% on and after 1 January 2015.

Annex VI invites member countries to submit to the IMO: “A proposal to the Organization for

designation of an Emission Control Area for NOx [nitrogen oxides] or SOx and particulate matter or all

three types of emissions may be submitted only by Parties.”

The proposal should include: “The type or types of emission(s) that is or are being proposed for control

(i.e. NOx or SOx and particulate matter or all three types of emissions).” It also requires additional

documentation of at-risk areas and populations, the contribution of ship emissions to pollution in the

area, the nature of ship traffic, and detailed costs of the proposal.

Atmospheric impacts

Emission of pollutants to the air from a ship is often chemically transformed to secondary species. Mixing

with ambient air takes place and dry deposition or rainout occurs.

The meteorological state of the atmosphere and insolation are also decisive for the chemical reactions

taking place. These factors make the interaction between chemically active gases highly nonlinear and

atmospheric perturbations may deviate substantially from perturbations in emissions. Ship emissions

might affect the levels of ozone (climate, health effects), sulphate (acidification, climate, health effects),

nitrate (acidification, eutrophication), NO2 (pollution, precursor ozone and nitrate), SO2 (pollution,

precursor sulphate), OH and its effect on methane (climate), and aerosols (pollution, climate).

Page 19 of 43

Diesel Engine Exhaust Composition

When looking at the effects of diesel engine exhaust on the environment, it is important to first look at

the composition of the exhaust gases. Over 99.5% of the exhaust gases are a combination of nitrogen,

oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water. With the exception of carbon dioxide, which contributes about 5% of

the total volume, the diesel engine exhaust consists of elements which are part of the natural atmosphere

and are not harmful to the environment. The remaining 5 ½% (including CO2) are the elements that can

be harmful to the environment and should be controlled.

AIR + FUEL = EXHAUST EMISSION

Oxygen (O2) Carbon (C) Carbon-dioxide (CO2)

Nitrogen (N2) Hydrogen (H2) Carbon-monoxide (CO)

Water vapour Sulfur (S) Sulfur-dioxide (SO2)

Oxygen (O2) Excess O2

Nitrogen (N2) Nitrogen-oxides (NOx)

Water (H2O) Nitrogen (N2)

Water vapour

1%

78%

0%

21%

Ambient Air Composition

Argon Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide Oxygen

1%

76%

5%

12%

1% 5%

Exhaust Composition

Argon Nitrogen

Carbon Dioxide Oxygen

Others Water

Page 20 of 43

Figure 11: Ulstein X-Bow® Hull Design

An X-Bow® type of hull (Fig 11) significantly improves the overall hydrodynamic performance of the

vessel thus increasing fuel efficiency thereby reducing the overall volume of engine exhaust. This is

particularly important for 3D seismic vessels where the vessel is required to transit in open oceans at high

speeds over long distances or work for long periods at low speeds under heavy towing loads. Use of low

sulfur fuels like marine gas oil (MGO) further reduces the SOx components. Incorporation of high

specification exhaust catalytic converters can provide oxidation catalysts which use O2 to oxidize CO to

CO2 and any residual hydrocarbons to H2O and CO2. A second stage selective catalytic reduction uses

Urea as a catalyst to reduce NOx to simple nitrogen gas. The two stage process is predicted to reduce

NOx emissions by over 90%, residual hydrocarbons by 80 – 90%, soot particles by over 20%, and as an

added benefit an exhaust vent noise reduction of 20 – 35 dB (A).

Polarcus Emission Statistics 2010

We will now break down each GHG Exhaust Gas Emission in order to clarify what it means to the

environment and what is being done in order to reduce its footprint. Below is an overview of the

emissions being deciphered.

Table 3: Industry vs. Polarcus Emission outline

** Cross comparison based on ~ 200 actual vessel months over a period of 2 years for seismic industry 6 - 12 streamer

vessels consuming on average 65% HFO & 35% MGO vs. PLCS 24 months statistics.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NOx % SOx % CO2 %

Average Emission per vessel & month

High end Seismic Fleet**

Polarcus Fleet

Page 21 of 43

4. Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless gas that is to be found in every common combustion process.

Carbon dioxide emissions are directly related to the efficiency of the combustion unit; the higher the

efficiency the lower the CO2 emissions. The diesel engine has a relatively high efficiency and, therefore,

the carbon dioxide emissions are lower as compared to other less efficient prime movers. Carbon dioxide

is considered the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and should be kept at acceptable levels.

Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are directly related to the combustion process. The cleaner the

overall combustion, the lower the CO and CxHy emissions. Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons

contribute to the ozone/smog formation in the lower atmosphere and should be kept at acceptable levels.

The combustion of 1 ton of Marine Gas Oil with a carbon content on a typical 86 mass-% results in the

formation of 0.86 x 1,000 x (44/12) = 3.15 tons of CO2 generated from 1 ton of fuel oil (44 = molecular

weight for CO2, 12 = molecular weight of C). This fuel specific CO2 emission rate remains constant

across the load range for all combustion machinery using a given fuel.

As a point of reference it takes 6 pine trees twenty-five years to offset one tone of carbon dioxide.

Carbon monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless and tasteless gas which is slightly lighter than air. It is highly

toxic to humans and animals in higher quantities.

Carbon monoxide is produced from the partial oxidation of carbon-containing compounds; it forms

when there is not enough oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2).

Polarcus COx Emission reduction

Polarcus has through the previously described Emission Indexing Modeling, optimized the vessels

platform for the work it is set out to do. The result leads to a more fuel efficient operation, directly

leading to reducing the CO2 emission. The main vessel features and seismic drag reduction methods that

contribute to reduce fuel consumption have been highlighted below:

Page 22 of 43

ULSTEIN X-BOW® hull design advantages

- Higher transit speed in calm water due to low angles of entry and increased waterline length

- No flare, eliminating bow impact and/ or slamming in foreship

- Reduced noise and vibration levels in foreship due to soft entry in waves

- Less spray due to water not being thrown forward

- Negligible occurrences of green water on bridge deck

- Higher transit speed in head sea, giving reduced power consumption and/ or higher fuel efficiency

both in waves and still water

- Lower pitch and heave accelerations due to foreship volume distribution and slender hull lines

- Higher operability in head and following sea

The ULSTEIN X-BOW® has a significant speed advantage in sea-states most probable on a North

Atlantic trade route.

Waves in the North Atlantic are expected to be above 2.5 meters 74% of the time and ULSTEIN X-

BOW® has an average improvement of 19% in the range Hs = 2.5-10.0 meters.

Figure 12: X-Bow® vs Conventional bow: Speed loss in waves

ULSTEIN X-BOW® - Slender Hull (Fig 13)

- Slender water lines to displace volume over a longer period of time in waves

- Reduces accelerations and retardations => Higher transit speed in waves

- This also improves comfort and operability

Page 23 of 43

Figure 13: X-Bow® Slender Hull lines vs. Conventional bow.

Figure 14: Hull feature comparison of equivalent offshore vessels

1. Sharper entry

2. Finer waterlines (less angle against the centerline)

3. Very little flare

4. Backward sloping bow

5. More Volume High up, gradually emerged in wave

6. Round entry

7. Less fine waterlines

8. Heavy flare

9. Forward sloping bow

10. Less volume, more suddenly emerged in wave

Page 24 of 43

Water planes – Heavy seas

Consider the cut water plane area changes of an approaching wave. It results is reduced pitch

roll heave acceleration / less vessel movements enabling a more comfortable environment onboard

as well as widens the window of safe helicopter crew change.

Figure 15: Waterplanes in heavy seas

Seismic COx Emission reduction – Wide Tow System

A seismic vessel spends most of its time either transiting at high speeds from survey to survey or pulling

large tow loads at slow speed during survey operations. Although the hydrodynamic efficiency of the

ship‟s hull helps increase fuel efficiency during survey operations the main contributor to fuel

consumption is the tow load of the seismic spread and the main component of that load is the drag

induced by the wide tow diverters commonly known as wings or vanes. These devises are designed to

produce the lateral force required to pull the streamers and sources into the desire acquisition geometry to

meet the spatial sampling requirements of a 3D survey. Currently a major portion of 3D surveys are

acquired with 8 to 12 streamers with lateral separations of 100m between streamers and lengths ranging

up to 8 km. These geometries required placement of streamers from 350m to 550m from the centerline

of the vessel resulting in lateral forces generated by the diverters on the order of 240 kilonewtons (or over

26 US tons). Therefore the design and hydrodynamic efficiency, lift-to-drag ratio, of the diverters have a

significant impact on the overall fuel consumption, and thus emitted engine exhausts, during the course

of a 3D survey. Any increase in lift versus drag provides a large benefit.

A secondary, but important, component to the overall tow load is the drag induced by all the components

and connecting lines of the seismic spread such as the streamer lead-ins, diverter tow lines, spreader

ropes, gun strings, gun umbilicals, etc. Since frictional drag due to turbulent boundary flow is

proportional to the square of the radius of a tow rope, wire, or tube, the diameter of all in-water tow

members should be kept as small as possible.

Page 25 of 43

Figure 17: Turbulent boundary induced drag

This premise has been a significant driving force in the engineering of modern streamers, airgun control

systems, and wide-tow stress members. In both streamers and airgun control systems the quest for

reduced diameter elements has been facilitated by the development of distributed digital electronics

versus the analogue wiring and control systems initially used in towed streamer and source systems. Wide

tow stress members have migrated from metal wire based components to low weight, high strength

synthetic ropes.

Even with reduced diameters, all towed members still contribute to the overall drag the vessel has to tow.

A further mitigation is to use solid fairing on all tow members to further reduce drag. This is especially

important for those tow members that are positioned transfers to the tow direction.

Figure 18: Solid faring reduces turbulent boundary induced drag

These fairing designs act as mini-wings in effect converting the turbulent boundary flow near the member

to laminar flow over the wing surface. Application of such fairings can have a significant impact on the

overall tow load of the seismic spread and also contribute to reduction in mechanical vibrations that can

induce noise in the streamers.

Page 26 of 43

Polarcus 2010 CO2 Emissions

The efforts in decreasing the vessels drag and displacement has till date statistically reduced the emission

of CO2 by 14%.

Table 4: CO2 Emission: Industry vs. Polarcus

** Cross comparison based on ~ 200 actual vessel months over a period of 2 years for seismic industry 6 - 12 streamer

vessels vs. PLCS 24 months statistics.

The emission reduction results are pleasing, though in order to compare the true improvement for the

industry; it could also be valuable to compare the Polarcus fleet with typical seismic vessel in the industry.

Average Emission per vessel & month CO2 (t) USD* CO2 %

Global Seismic Fleet** 2,926 89,501 54%

Polarcus Fleet 2,507 76,690 46%

Polarcus vs. Industry

14%

Table 5: Average Emission per vessel & month

86%

14%

Polarcus Fleet CO2 Emission

CO2 Emission (t)

Page 27 of 43

5. Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

Recent studies indicate that the emission of NOx by ship corresponds to about 10% to 15% of the global

anthropogenic emissions. NOx or Nitrogen oxides occur in all combustion processes where fossil fuels

are burned, partly through oxidation of the nitrogen content of the air, as well as the organic nitrogen

content of the fuel.

The nitric oxide formed oxidises with time and forms nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

Nitrogen dioxide is a brown, toxic, water-soluble gas that can seriously damage the lungs if inhaled, as

well as contributing to acid rain which has proven to be harmful to ecosystems. In connection with the

UV-rays in sunlight it helps to form ozone.

NOx emissions from ship traffic also lead to significant increases in OH. Since reaction with OH is the

major loss of methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations.

Reductions in methane lifetime due to shipping NOx vary between 1.5% and 5% in different calculations.

Nitrogen and Oxygen in the combustion process:

N2 + O2 + heat NO2

or

N2 + O2 + heat 2NO

Nitrous oxide is a major greenhouse gas and air pollutant, it has ~ 300 times more impact per unit weight

than carbon dioxide. This considered Polarcus applied the most effective and available technologies that

reduces NOx emission.

Fig 19: Yearly average contribution from ship traffic to wet Nitrate disposition.

Page 28 of 43

NOx Emissions Reduction Methods

There are two types of NOx reduction methods – primary and secondary methods. The primary methods

include those that alter the combustion process to reduce the NOx emission levels. The secondary

methods include those that clean the exhaust gases after they leave the combustion chamber.

Technology

Operational cost

($/MWh)

Investment

cost ($/kW)

Reduction

effect

Basic Internal Engine Modifications (BIEM) 0 0.41 20%

Advanced Internal Engine Modifications (AIEM) 0 8.4 30%

Direct Water Injection (DWI) 2.95 27 60%

Humid Air Motors (HAM) 0.21 158 70%

Fuel/Water Emulsification (FWE) 2.8 36 25%

Exhaust Gas Re-circulation (EGR) 32 0 35%

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 8.4 88 85 - 95%

Table 6: NOx Emision reduction methods

Polarcus: Primary NOx Emission Reduction Methods

The NOx formation process is extremely complex and involves hundreds of different reactions in the

combustion process. The NOx formation process is influenced heavily by temperature. The NOx

concentration increases exponentially as the temperature increases. In fact, thermal NOx formation

contributes 65-75% of the total NOx formation in the combustion process. In addition, time is an

important factor in the NOx concentration. The longer the combustion process at the higher

temperatures, the more NOx is formed. With this in mind, the easiest way to reduce the NOx emission

levels, are to decrease the length of the combustion process and the temperature at which the combustion

process takes place.

The Polarcus fleet is installed with diesel engines that achieve low NOx combustion. The Low NOx

combustion method involves rearranging the diesel cycle. The diesel cycle is rearranged by increasing the

compression ratio and fuel injection pressures, closing the inlet valve sooner, and starting the fuel

injection at a very late stage in the cycle. The results of the rearranged cycle are lower combustion

temperatures and a shorter combustion duration at high temperatures. This method has a NOx reduction

potential of 25-35%. In addition, with the low NOx combustion process, the fuel consumption remains

the same and, in some cases, is actually improved slightly.

Page 29 of 43

Combustion process

The combustion process is illustrated in the diagram below:

- High combustion air temperature at injection start

- Short injection period

- Good fuel atomization

- Optimal combustion space geometry

Figure 20: Conventional design vs. Low NOx design

The optimum configuration and timing of the combustion process determines the efficiency of the

energy converted into a dynamic movement as well as the residual amount of emission as a result of that.

Page 30 of 43

Polarcus: Secondary NOx Emission Reduction Methods

The most common and most effective method of secondary NOx emission control is the selective

catalytic reduction (SCR). This method involves injecting a urea/water solution in the exhaust system

after the exhaust gas leaves the engine. The urea/water solution mixes with the exhaust gases before

entering the honeycomb reactor. In the reactor, the exhaust gas/urea/water mixture chemically reacts to

form nitrogen and water at the outlet of the reactor. The SCR system has a NOx emission reduction

potential of 85- 95% or down to about 1-2 g/kWh. The actual amount of reduction is dependent on the

amount of urea/water solution injected. The more solution injected, the lower the NOx emissions outlet

to a certain limit. If too much urea/water solution is injected, it can cause what is known as ammonia slip.

Ammonia slip causes the smell of ammonia out the exhaust stack.

With the high degree of NOx emission reduction, the SCR system is ideal for vessels operating in

sensitive areas.

Compact Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

The Polarcus fleet have been installed with Selective Catalytic Reduction as this is the most effective way

to reduce NOx and the H+H Catalyst provided by H+H Environmental and Industrial Technologies

GmbH.

The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) process reduces NOx emissions to harmless substances normally

found in the air that we breathe. SCR is currently the most efficient method of NOx reduction. A

reducing agent, in the form of an aqueous solution of urea, is injected into the exhaust gas at a

temperature of 290-450 °C. The urea in the exhaust gas decays into ammonia, which is then put through a

catalyzing process that converts the NOx into harmless nitrogen and water. The SCR method reduces

NOx emissions by 85-95% in ideal conditions. Hence, it is feasible to reach a NOx level of 2 g/kWh or

lower, which complies with the most stringent levels at sea.

SCR technology

Compact SCR is a combined silencer and SCR unit – hardly any bigger than an ordinary silencer. A

typical SCR plant consists of a reactor, which contains several catalyst layers, a dosing and storage system

for the reagent, and a control system. The SCR reactor is a square steel container large enough to house

the layers of catalytic elements. The parameter for controlling the amount of urea injected is the engine

load. To achieve more accurate control, the injection can be linked to feedback from a NOx measuring

device after the catalyst. The rate of NOx reduction depends on the amount of urea injected, which can

be expressed as the ratio of NH3 to NOx. The reduction rate can also be increased by increasing the

catalyst volume.

The chemistry of SCR

The reducing agent is urea, which is a harmless substance used in the agricultural sector. The urea

solution is injected into the exhaust gas directly after the turbocharger. Urea decays immediately to

ammonium and carbon dioxide according to the following formula:

(NH2)2CO + H2O + heat 2 NH3 + CO2

The mixture is passed through the catalyst, where NOx is converted to nitrogen and water:

Page 31 of 43

4 NO + 4 NH3 + O2 4 N2 + 6 H2O

6 NO2 + 8 NH3 7 N2 + 12 H2O

Fig 21: SCR principal drawing

The newer generation turbo diesel engine we have installed produces lower volumes of NOx initially,

which means that the SCR system needs to remove less NOx in post processing, resulting in a reduced

amount of urea used.

For 40% v/v urea, it takes 1.5 L urea to reduce 1 kg NOx to N2 and H2O, like the equation below:

Page 32 of 43

A commonly asked question: The SCR produces CO2 as a by-product, as CO2 is also a GHG why is

this acceptable?

Answer:

The formula is: (NH2)2CO + H2O + heat 2 NH3 + CO2

The catalyst reaction, as to equation above

The molar relation between urea and CO2 is 1:1. That means that one mol urea equals one mol CO2.

The molar mass for 40% urea concentrate is 34.8 g/mol

The molar mass for CO2 is 44 g/mol

The density of 40 % urea is 1.11 kg/L

m = density x V = 1.11 x 1 = 1.11 kg

m = Molar mass x mol

mol urea 40% = 1.11/34.8 = mol CO2 (for optimal stoichiometric conditions) = 0.032 mol = 1.40 kg

CO2 per 1.5 L urea.

The additional emissions of CO2 from the chemical reaction within the SCR represents approximately 2%

additional CO2 over and above the direct CO2 emission from combustion. CO2 is then calculated as the

fuel consumption multiplied by the carbon content (3.12). Hence as NOx is a major greenhouse gas and

air pollutant that has ~ 300 times more impact per unit weight than CO2; NOx becomes the priority to

reduce.

Polarcus is already today capable of achieving the new build requirements for 2016

Tier NOx (g/kWh) @ 1000 rpm Ships constructed on or after

Tier I 11.3 1.1.2000

Tier II 8.98 1.1.2011

Tier III 2.26 1.1.2016

Table 7: IMO NOx regulations on new build ships

Page 33 of 43

Figure 22: IMO NOx limits vs. Polarcus NOx emission

Polarcus 2010 NOx Emissions

The SCR reactor has done well for Polarcus

during 2010 with a weighted average 70%

reduction in emissions over a 24 vessel month

period. The statistics are a strong contributor to

optimizing the engines efficiency, resulting in

increased overall engine efficiency; reducing the

fuel consumption and improving the SCR

efficiency; further reducing the NOx emissions.

The emission reduction results are pleasing,

though in order to compare the true

improvement for the industry; it could also be

valuable to compare the Polarcus fleet with

typical seismic vessel in the industry.

Average Emission per vessel & month NOx (t) USD* NOx %

Global Seismic Fleet** 52 325,677 84%

Polarcus Fleet 8 51,931 16%

Polarcus vs. Industry

627%

Table 8: NOx Emission: Industry vs. Polarcus ** Cross comparison based on ~ 200 actual vessel months over a period

of 2 years for seismic industry 6 - 12 streamer vessels vs. PLCS 24 months statistics.

The results show that the Polarcus fleet is reduces its NOx by more than 600% in comparison to its peers.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

NO

x (

g/k

Wh

)

Year 2010 2011 2016

Revised Marpol Annex VI Proposal by IMO BLG 12

Average NOx YTD for the

Polarcus Fleet

70%

30%

Polarcus Fleet NOx Emission

NOx Reduction (kg)

Total NOx Emission (kg)

Page 34 of 43

6. Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

Recent studies indicate that the emissions of SO2 by ships, corresponds to about 4% to 9% of the global

anthropogenic emissions. The SO2 content is directly proportional to the type and quality of the fuel

being used. It is a toxic gas which contributes to the formation of acid rain that can be harmful to

ecosystems in regions with low buffering capacity, and have harmful health effects. Together with water,

sulfurous acid (H2SO3) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) are formed.

The only primary method to achieve lower sulfur oxide emissions is to choose a fuel with lower

sulfur content. Low sulfur fuels are becoming more prevalent in the marine and offshore

industry. There is a cost impact with using low sulfur fuels, though here again Polarcus has

chosen responsible approach.

Sulfur in the combustion process

A simplified equation for what happens to the sulfur in the engine is

S + O2 SO2

The molar mass difference between S and SO2 is 2 (32.0 vs 32.0 + 16.0 x 2). Mass calculations taking

molar relations into account is done through the relation mass (kg) = Molar mass (mol/kg) x mol (mol).

This means, that the correct calculation for the resulting SO2 is: Sulfur content (w%) x fuel volume (m3) x

fuel density (ton/m3) x 2 (molar relation).

Relative ship-induced increases are estimated to be in the range 5%-35% in wet deposition of sulfate.

Sulfate effect the climate due to scattering/absorption of radiation (direct effect) and impact on clouds

(indirect effect).

Fig 23: Yearly average contribution from ship traffic to wet Sulfur disposition.

Page 35 of 43

How does Polarcus minimize its SOx emission?

Through securing low Sulfur fuels from reliable vendors. The fuel delivery noted are cross

referenced by a DNV Fuel oil sampling analysis reports that we would normally get 3 – 5 days

after submitting the fuel sample. The high grade fuels it comes at a premium though it is part of

an overall Corporate Social Responsibility of the Company.

IMO Sulfur Limits

IMO – the International Maritime Organization – is the United Nations specialized agency with

responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by

ships has updated their global sulfur limit restrictions as per Figure 24. ECA meaning Emission

Controlled Areas as defined in Figure 10 earlier.

Figure 24: IMO Sulfur Limits vs. Polarcus fleet

The Polarcus Sulfur emissions as per Figure 24 above clearly indicate that the fleet operates on a

world wide scale as if it were considered ECA‟s.

Page 36 of 43

Polarcus SOx Emission Reduction

The Polarcus Fleet SOx reduction is solely dependent on the procurement procedures as well as

consent to procure low sulfur fuels despite them being more expensive and despite superseding

international requirements already today.

Table 9: SOx Emission: Industry vs. Polarcus** Cross comparison based on ~ 200 actual vessel months over a period of

2 years for seismic industry 6 - 12 streamer vessels vs. PLCS 24 months statistics.

The results show that the Polarcus fleet is reduces its SOx by more than 1800% in comparison to its

peers.

85% 15%

Polarcus Fleet SOx Emission Reduction vs. ECA

SOx % Reduction vs. IMO ECA

SOx % Emission vs. IMO ECA

97%

3%

Polarcus Fleet SOx Emission Reduction vs. non ECA

SOx % Reduction vs.non IMO ECA

Average Emission per vessel & month SOx (t) USD* SOx %

Global Seismic Fleet** 40% within ECA 41 398,263 94%

Polarcus Fleet 2 22,032 6%

Polarcus vs. Industry

1808%

Page 37 of 43

Why does Polarcus not use Heavy Fuel Oil?

Enormous amounts of bunker fuel are consumed each year by the world fleet of cargo and commercial

vessels as well as the military ones. Recent estimates give figures around 290 million tons where about

80% is heavy fuel oil. Totally there are about 90,000 merchant vessels over 100 gross tons as well as

almost 20,000 military vessels in the world

The heavy fuel oil (HFO) mainly consists of residual refinery streams from the distillation or cracking

units in the refineries. The crude quality as well as the refinery process governs, to a large extent, what

type of HFO you´ll end up with. For example a high sulfur crude will result in a high sulfur HFO and

catalytically cracked residual oil will contain more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatics (PCA*) than a

"straight run" residual oil from atmospheric distillation

Typical values for a European catalytically cracked HFO of the viscosity 380 cST, are around 2.6% sulfur

and other parts of the world around 4.5% sulfur and 13-18% polycyclic aromatics. Low sulfur fuel

(~0.5% S) may have lower values of polycyclic aromatics. Other components from the crude like organo-

metallic or metallic substances can also be found in the HFO as well as additives like "pour point

depressants", "combustion improvers" etc.

All HFOs on the market are classified as carcinogenic (cat. 2), harmful and dangerous for the

environment according to the EU Dangerous Substances Directive

Other bunker fuels than the HFO are the marine diesel oil (MDO) and the marine gas oil (MGO). These

are distillates from the refinery process with much lower viscosity, lower sulfur content (MDO usually

<1%S, MGO< 0.2% S) and usually lower PCA than the HFO.

7. Soot (smoke)

Particle / Soot / Smoke Emissions

Another element of diesel engine exhaust receiving environmental attention is the particle / soot / smoke

emissions. Particle emissions are contributed to low load operation and large load swings causing un-

burnt fuel in the exhaust. Particle emissions are also influenced by the fuel ash and sulfur content as well

as poor combustion due to insufficient engine preheating. Particle emissions from a diesel engine are

typically low during steady state operation at higher loads, but during start-up, low load operation, and

large load swings, it is common to see a puff of black smoke from the exhaust stack. Smoke emissions

draw attention in pristine areas such as Alaska. Some local regulations are now prohibiting smoke

emissions during operation in coastal areas.

The Polarcus vessels reduce the residual hydrocarbons by 80 – 90%, soot particles by over 20%.

Page 38 of 43

8. Conclusions

Using the emission matrix concept, sources of solid, fluid, gaseous, and acoustic by-products generated

during a marine towed streamer survey can be identified. Technology solutions are available for both the

survey vessel and the applied seismic technologies to mitigate each type of emission and, thus, the overall

environmental footprint of a towed streamer survey. In most cases mitigation can be put in place to

reduce the risk from standard by-products and accidental incidents, such as fluid spills from the vessel or

streamers.

Polarcus fleet has ~ 540% less gaseous emission than competition

Table 10: High End Seismic fleet Gaseous Emission comparison: Industry vs. Polarcus. Competitor assumption baced on

35% MGO & 65% HFO.

84%

16%

Seismic Fleet Emission comparisson

High end Seismic Fleet**

Polarcus Fleet

Page 39 of 43

Figure 25: Emission Matrix: Post-Mitigation.

Risk level red = high, yellow = moderate, green = low

However, the seismic reflection method requires a sound source, and in some cases multiple sources, so

there will always be the issue of anthropogenic sound associated with marine seismic surveys. Currently

airguns are the most acoustically efficient and economical devices available for that purpose. But there is

increasing global pressure being brought to bear on government regulatory agencies to apply tighter

restrictions on the use of airguns. Considerable research has and is being conducted on finding more

benign alternative seismic sources but until such devices are proven both geophysically and operationally

we have little choice but to use airguns.

Hopefully, several current joint cooperative research initiatives between the E&P industry, government

agencies, and academic institutions will help provide a clearer understanding of the biological significance

of potential acoustic impacts from marine seismic sources and provide a framework from which

pragmatic monitoring and mitigation regulations can be defined and implemented.

Page 40 of 43

9. International Regulations

The international regulatory body is the IMO

Revised MARPOL Annex III adopted at IMO environment meeting

Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) – 61st session: 27 September - 1 October, 2010

Covering a packed agenda when it met for its 61st session from 27 September to 1 October, 2010 in

London, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime

Organization (IMO), progressed its work on a number of important issues, including the adoption of the

revised MARPOL Annex III, the approval of a revised text for MARPOL Annex V, the implementation

of the ballast water and ship recycling conventions and the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases

from ships (see Briefing 48/2010).

Revised MARPOL Annex III to prevent pollution from packaged goods adopted

The revised MARPOL Annex III Regulations for the prevention of pollution by harmful substances

carried by sea in packaged form was adopted by consensus during the session and is expected to enter

into force on 1 January 2014 in order for changes to the Annex to coincide with the next update of the

mandatory International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, specifying that goods should be

shipped in accordance with relevant provisions.

Revised MARPOL Annex V text approved

The MEPC approved, with a view to adoption at its next session, amendments to revise and update

MARPOL Annex V Regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships, following a

comprehensive review of this Annex.

The main changes include the updating of definitions; the inclusion of a new requirement specifying that

discharge of all garbage into the sea is prohibited, except as expressly provided otherwise (the discharges

permitted in certain circumstances include food wastes, cargo residues and water used for washing deck

and external surfaces containing cleaning agents or additives which are not harmful to the marine

environment); expansion of the requirements for placards and garbage management plans to fixed and

floating platforms engaged in exploration and exploitation of the sea-bed; and the proposed addition of

discharge requirements covering animal carcasses.

Ballast water management systems approved

After consideration of the reports of the thirteenth and fourteenth meetings of the Joint Group of

Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environment Protection (GESAMP) Ballast Water Working

Group, which met in May and July 2010, respectively, the MEPC granted Final Approval to six ballast

water management systems that make use of active substances and Basic Approval to three such systems.

The MEPC also approved circulars on the Framework for determining when a Basic Approval granted to

one BWMS may be applied to another system that uses the same Active Substance or Preparation and

Guidance for Administrations on the type approval process for ballast water management systems in

accordance with the G8 Guidelines (for approval of ballast water management systems).

Page 41 of 43

The MEPC reiterated the need for countries to ratify the International Convention for the Control and

Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004, to achieve its entry into force at the earliest

opportunity. To date, 27 States, with an aggregate merchant shipping tonnage of 25.32 per cent of the

world total, have ratified the Convention. The Convention will enter into force twelve months after the

date on which not fewer than 30 States, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than

35 percent of the gross tonnage of the world‟s merchant shipping, have become Parties to it.

The MEPC noted the conclusion of the Review Group on Ballast Water Treatment Technologies

(BWRG) that, for ships with ballast water capacity up to 5,000 cubic metres, including those constructed

in 2011, there are sufficient technologies available to meet the requirements of the Convention and their

number is increasing.

ECA Emission Control Area proposal put forward to next session for adoption

The MEPC approved a proposal to designate certain waters adjacent to coasts of Puerto Rico (United

States) and the Virgin Islands (United States) as an ECA for the control of emissions of nitrogen oxide

(NOX), sulfur oxide (SOX), and particulate matter under MARPOL Annex VI Regulations for the

prevention of air pollution from ships and agreed to consider the proposal for adoption at its next

session.

Currently, there are two designated ECAs under Annex VI, the Baltic Sea area and the North Sea area,

while a third area, the North American ECA, was adopted in March 2010, with expected entry into force

in August 2011.

Under Annex VI (2008), the maximum sulfur level in fuel will be progressively lowered for an ECA as

follows:

I. 1.00% on and after 1 July 2010; and

II. 0.10% on and after 1 January 2015.

Annex VI invites member countries to submit to the IMO: “A proposal to the Organization for

designation of an Emission Control Area for NOx [nitrogen oxides] or SOx and particulate matter or all

three types of emissions may be submitted only by Parties.”

Page 42 of 43

The proposal should include: “The type or types of emission(s) that is or are being proposed for control

(i.e. NOx or SOx and particulate matter or all three types of emissions).” It also requires additional

documentation of at-risk areas and populations, the contribution of ship emissions to pollution in the

area, the nature of ship traffic, and detailed costs of the proposal.

Recycling of ships

The MEPC continued its work on developing guidelines intended to assist ship recycling facilities to

commence introducing voluntary improvements to meet the requirements of the Hong Kong

International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, which was adopted

in May 2009.

It was agreed to re-establish the intercessional Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling to further

develop the draft Guidelines for safe and environmentally sound ship recycling, Guidelines for the

development of the Ship Recycling Plan and Guidelines for the authorization of Ship Recycling Facilities.

The Committee encouraged Governments to ratify the Convention, which has been signed, subject to

ratification, by five countries, and to review the program for technical assistance aimed at supporting its

early implementation.

Annex IV special area proposal approved

The MEPC approved draft amendments to amend MARPOL Annex IV Prevention of pollution by

sewage from ships to include the possibility of establishing “Special Areas” for the prevention of such

pollution and to designate the Baltic Sea as a Special Area under this Annex. The amendments will be

considered for adoption at the next session.

Revised IAPP form supplement adopted

The MEPC adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI Regulations on the prevention of air pollution

form ships to amend the Form of Supplement to the International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP)

Certificate.

The revised form is intended to clearly and precisely document the extent of a ship's compliance with

regulations 4 and 14 of MARPOL Annex VI regarding sulfur oxide (SOx) values, or the possibility of

using equivalent arrangements, outside or inside an Emission Control Area (ECA). The revised form is

expected to enter into force on 1 February 2012 but the Committee noted that Member Governments

have been invited to use the revised form of Supplement to the IAPP Certificate at the earliest possible

opportunity.

The MEPC also adopted revised Guidelines for monitoring the worldwide average sulfur content of

residual fuel oils supplied for use on board ships.

PSSA for Strait of Bonifacio to be further considered at next session

The MEPC considered a proposal submitted by France and Italy to designate the Strait of Bonifacio as a

Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA), and noted that the overwhelming majority of delegations that

Page 43 of 43

spoke agreed with the proposal, in principle, subject to a review by the Technical Group on PSSAs, which

will be convened at the Committee's next session. In the meantime, the proponents were invited to also

submit their proposals for associated protective measures to the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation

for its consideration.

Implementation of the OPRC Convention and OPRC-HNS Protocol

The MEPC considered the report of the eleventh meeting of the OPRC HNS Technical Group, held in

the week prior to the Committee‟s session, and approved the following draft texts developed by the

Technical Group: the revised Manual on oil pollution, Section I - Prevention and the Guidance document

on the implementation of an incident management system.

IMO – the International Maritime Organization – is the United Nations specialized agency with responsibility for the safety and

security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships.

Web site: www.imo.org