46 – SKIPSREVYEN 1/2011

En bloc MAJESTIC MAERSK,MARIE MAERSK & MAGLEBYMAERSK all 60,350 dwt 3922 teub. 1990 Odense Lindø to MSC atprivate terms

OOCL Xiamen 43,093 dwt 2750teu b. 2003 Koyo Dock $27m toTechnomar

FRISIA KOPENHAGEN 38,104dwt 2702 teu b. 2005 Nordseewerkeexcess $36m

ORANJE 29,651 dwt 2098 teu b.1991 Brod. Uljanik $7.5m to Costa-mare

FOREVER PROSPERITY22,800 dwt 1550 teu b. 1996 Stocz-nia Gdansk $10m to Costamare

ASIAN TRADER 22,735 dwt1404 teu b. 1991 Shin Kurushima$6.75m to Tanto Intim Line

NORDLAKE 22,450 dwt 1524teu b. 1994 Stocz. Szczecin $10m toOrient Express Line

SINAR BINTAN 14,971 dwt1048 teu b. 2002 Hakata $13.6m toSamudera Shipping

CARAVELLE 14,643 dwt 1122teu b. 1996 Volkswerft just below$9m to Greece

ZAGORA 14,100 dwt 1162 teu b.1995 Stocz. Szczecin 8.3m to Greekbuyers

MERKUR LAKE 12,576 dwt b.1994 Stocz. Szczecin $7.5m toAsian buyers

ARTUS 8,745 dwt 698 teu b.2000 Hegemann Rolandwerft$7.5m to Greece

SUDERTOR 5,450 dwt 519 teub. 2000 Jiangyang $4.3m to Portu-gal

CONGER 5,207 dwt 508 teu b.1995 J. J. Sietas €2.5m to Germanbuyers w/SS/DD due

Ro-Ro/Carcarriers/Passengers

En bloc ASIAN KING 21,511 dwt6,460 cars b. 1998 Hyundai & GRE-EN DALE 15,894 dwt 6,000 cars b.1999 Kanasashi $64.5m to Interna-tional Shipholding Corp

STRAIT OF DOVER & STRAITOF GIBRALTAR both about 10,786dwt 3,810 lane m. b. 2010 HyundaiMipo $86.8m each to Pacific Basin

SCAN BRASIL 6,785 dwt 520lane m. b. 2003 Hegemann Roland-werft $12.5m to German buyers atauction

MED VISION 6,704 dwt 1100lane m. b. 1981 Götaverken $2m toSyria

SCOTIA SEAWAYS 5,928 dwt &HIBERNIA SEAWAYS 5,700 dwtbotha 1964 lane m. b. 1996 MihoZosensho private terms to StenaRoRo

MONA LISA 5,572 GT 722berths b. 1966 John Brown & Co toDSME Oman private terms

BILBAO (Car/pass.) about 4,000GT 2,500 pass. b. 1986 WärtsiläTurku $37.7m to St Peter Line

LONG JIE 3,202 GT 814 pass. b.1972 Wärtsilä Turku $12.9m

SUPERFERRY II 1,029 GT 1530pass. b. 1974 Boelwerf €5m to Gree-ce

TankersSUNRISE JEWEL 302,440 dwt b.1992 Daewoo $36m to Singaporefor conversion

ASCONA 299,198 dwt b. 1999Daewoo, double hull $55m to Dou-ble Hull Tankers

FRONT SHANGHAI 298,971dwt b. 2006 Nantong Cosco$91.24m to Gulf Navigation, Dubaiw/2 years t/c back at $35,000 pd

RUBY III 274,990 dwt b. 1990I.H.I. single hull $16.3m to WorldCarriers for storage purposes

TAJIMA 265,539 dwt b. 1996I.H.I., double hull $27.5m to Dyna-com

AFRODITI about 159,000 dwtdel. 2011 ex yard Hyundai Samhoabout $67m to Apollo

JUANITA (shuttle tanker)126,491 dwt b. 1988 Daewoo excess$12m to Middle-East buyers

SOUTHERN SPIRIT 114,000dwt b. 2008 New Times, coated$51m to Scorpio

DOMUS AUREA 107,197 dwt b.2003 Imabari, double hull, coated$32.25m to Eastern Mediterranean

OPAL QUEEN 107,181 dwt b.

2001 Imabari $34m to ETCTAMARA 97,793 dwt b. 1990

Koyo, double hull $9mGENMAR PRINCESS 96,648

dwt b. 1991 Sumitomo, double hull$7.7m to Dubai

FORMOSAPRODUCT COSMOS70,426 dwt b. 2005 Universal S.B.,double hull about $32/33m to Chi-na

FORMOSAPRODUCT ALPINEabout 70,000 dwt b. 2004 Univer-sal, coated $31m to Chinese buyers

CE-EXPRESS 69,998 dwt b.1990 Hashihama Zosen, doublehull $7.5m to Ocean Faith

NORTHERN DAWN 47,994 dwtb. 2003 Koyo, coated $19.9m toGreek buyers

En bloc GENMAR CONCORD47,400 dwt b. 2004, STENA CON-CEPT 47,400 dwt b. 2005 & STE-NA CONTEST 47,400 dwt b. 2005,all Brod. Uljanik $61.7m en bloc toNorthern Shipping Fund w/7 yearsb/b back at $6,500 pd first 2 years,thereafter $10,000 pd. Charterershave purchase options throughoutcharter

VANGUARD 47,094 dwt b. 1992Halla, double hull $9m

DOUBTLESS 47,094 dwt b. 1991Halla, double hull $7m

LYRA PIONEER 45,985 dwt b.2003 Shin Kurushima, double hull$20.5m to Cyprus Maritime

FAJA DE ORO II (IMO III)44,999 dwt b. 1995 Onomichi Doc-

kyard $12m to Far Eastern buyersSLS Shipbuilding x 2 unit 44,000

dwt, IMO II, 29 tanks, epoxy/zinccoated del. Feb and April 2011$42m each to Odfjell

PAYAL (IMO II/III) 37,159 dwtb. 2007 Hyundai Mipo $27.5m toNorden

ISOLA VERDE 36,457 dwt b.1994 Fincantieri, double hull$10.5m to Indonesia

FORMOSA FOUR about 35,000dwt b. 1991 Kurushima, doublehull $6.1m

ATORA 28,610 dwt b. 1991Kherson Shipyard, double hull $6mto Great Eastern, India

VEGA SPIRIT (IMO II/III)22,820 dwt b. 2001 Kitanihon, zinccoated $12.5m to Swedish buyers

STOLT NANAMI (IMO II/III)19,930 dwt b. 2003 KitanihonZosen $22.5m to MT Maritime

CHEM TAURUS 19,399 dwt b.2000 Shin Kurushima $15m

En bloc HELLESPONT CREDOabout 13,000 dwt b. 2007 Sekwang& sister vessels HELLESPONTCHIVALRY b. 2006 and HELLES-PONT CREATION b. 2007 $43men bloc to Lomar Shipping

EBONY (IMO II/III) 12,152 dwtb. 1986 Mitsubishi $2.4m basis “asis Durban”

IMO II KEREM 6,050 dwt b.2006 Torgem Shipyard excess$7.25m to Borealis Maritime

SUN CROWN (IMO II/III) 1,999dwt b. 1987 Murakami Hide $1.5mto Asian buyers

Gas CarriersBOUGAINVILLE 4,867 dwt 5031cbm b. 2001 Murakami Hide about$12/13m to China Gas

OffshoreSIEM MOLLIE (PSV VS 470 MkII) 3,600 dwt b. 2007 Aker Aukraabout $32m to Asia buyers

HELLESPONT DIONE (PSV)3,268 dwt b. 2010 Drydocks WorldBatam $29m to Tidewater

SEA COUGAR & SEA WOLF I(AHTS) 2,695 dwt 2599 GT b. 1999Kværner Ulsteinvik to Asian buy-ers private terms

TRICO MYSTIC 2,346 dwt b.t2008 Bender S.B. & sister vesselTRICO MOON $31.3m en bloc toPACC Offshore

NOR SKY 1,800 dwt (AHTS) b.2008 to Airia Jaya Marine follo-wing exercising of purchase option

SEADRAGON I & SEADRAGONII ultra-deepwater semi-submer-sible Moss Maritime CS50 Mk IIdesign del. 1q & 4q 2011 ex JurongShipyard, Singapore $1.2 bn enbloc to Seadrill

PETROJACK IV (jack-up) b.2009 Jurong Shipyard, Singaporeabout $180m to Seadrill

SOEHANAH Baker MarineJack-up type b. 2007 PPL Shipy-ard, Singapore $151.5m to ShipFinance International Limited w/7years b/b back to Apexindo Offsho-re at $72,500 pd. Charterers havepurch. option at end of charter at$70m

zachs@skipsrevyen.no

(all details given without guaran-tee)

Forts. fra foreg. side

New software has beendeveloped by Safety atSea that specificallyaddresses the Internatio-nal Maritime Organizati-on’s challenging SafeReturn to Port regulati-ons, demanding that,where possible, shipsshould act as their ownlifeboats.

As the hunger for far flung cruisesand remote offshore explorationhas intensified, administrations atIMO have recognized that Searchand Rescue alone will be unlikelyto meet all possible accident scena-rios.

For this reason, July 1, 2010 sawentry into force of new regulations,amending SOLAS and demandingmore emphasis on the preventionof a casualty from occurring in thefirst place. They demand that futu-re ships should be designed forimproved survivability so that, inthe event of a casualty, persons canstay safely onboard as the ship pro-ceeds to port.

The rules incorporate criteria fora casualty threshold, defined asthe amount of damage a ship cansustain according to its design andstill safely return to port. Catchingthe eye is the provision for alterna-tive designs for fire safety and eva-cuation arrangements so long asthey can be shown to meet thesame safety standard as prescripti-ve rules, and similar provisions foralternative designs for escape rou-tes. Less widely acknowledged arenew overall assessments for essen-tial systems’ availability for safereturn to port.

In detail, the amendments inclu-de: alternative designs and arran-gements; safe areas and the essen-tial systems to be maintained whi-le a ship proceeds to port after acasualty. This will require redun-dancy of propulsion and otheressential systems; on-board safetycentres, from where safety systems

can be controlled, operated andmonitored; fixed fire detection andalarm systems, including require-ments for fire detectors and manu-ally operated call points to becapable of being remotely and indi-vidually identified; fire prevention,including amendments aimed atenhancing the fire safety ofatriums, the means of escape incase of fire and ventilation sys-tems; and time for orderly evacua-tion and abandonment, includingrequirements for the essential sys-tems that must remain operationalin case any one main vertical zoneis unserviceable due to fire.

Initially driving the IMO’s Mari-time Safety Committee was con-cern over larger passenger ships,working on the principle that “aship is its own best lifeboat”. Thisapproach envisages that passeng-ers and crew should normally beable to evacuate to a safe havenonboard and stay there. In additi-on, this envisages that a shipshould always be able to proceed toport at a minimum safe speed.

Offshore equivalenceHowever, as the number of largeaccommodation vessels set to workin increasingly remote locations foroffshore construction has increa-sed, so too has impetus grown forthe rule changes to be transposedfor use within the IMO’s guidelineCode of Safety for Special PurposeShips. The Code, revised in 2008,applies to vessels of more than 500GT and carrying more than 12 spe-cial personnel. It entered into forcein May 2010. Under SOLAS provi-sions, any vessel carrying morethan 12 personnel not crew or spe-cial personnel automatically beco-mes a passenger ship.

To understand how the generalaspirations of IMO thinking havebeen translated into specific shipdesign guidelines, it is necessary toturn to the detailed contributorywork undertaken as part of theEU-funded SAFEDOR project, andthe development of system availa-bility software codes to develop a

methodology to define and assesssafe return to port requirements.

Participants included Safety atSea and the Ship Stability Rese-arch Centre (Univ. of Strathclyde).Subsequently, SaS continued thedevelopment of the code as theSRTP requirements were beingdeveloped at IMO resulting in thesoftware sold today as I-SYS.

The software identifies essentialsystems as all systems and thosesections of systems in spaces notdirectly affected by the casualtythat need to remain operationalafter a fire or flooding casualty.Critical systems, meanwhile, areessential systems identified in theoverall assessment of essential sys-tems to have a possibility to fail tooperate adequately as a conse-quence of one or more fire casualtycase, each not exceeding the firecasualty threshold, or as a conse-quence of one or more floodingcase, each not exceeding a singlewatertight compartment.

The resulting package has alrea-dy been used in a number of pro-jects in the passenger ship sector,forming the basis for fire and floo-ding protection assessments of sys-tems’ of safe return to port capabi-lities on behalf of Daewoo Shipbu-ilding and Marine Engineering(April – July 2009) and SamsungHeavy Industries (two projects, one

running January – May 2010, andthe other from June – August2010).

Also proceeding has been initialwork in the offshore sector, whereSaS has worked on requirementsas they relate to fire protection,vessel subdivisions and systemsredundancy.

Luis Guarin, Director, SafetyEngineering, Safety at Sea Ltd,said that the new software codeoffered key opportunities in relati-on to offshore construction, fielddevelopment support vessels andother offshore craft. – We have car-ried out two initial jobs for Sam-sung Heavy Industries (SHI), hesaid. – One of these focused riskassessment of fire protectionarrangements in some areas belowthe main deck for a field develop-ment support vessel under con-struction for Saipem. This includedadvanced fire engineering calcula-tions and escape route analysis (bysimulations). Alternative designevaluations were also made of fireprotection arrangements in machi-nery spaces (as per IMOMSC/Circ.1002).

– In the second project, whichfocused on an offshore constructionvessel, we carried out evacuationanalyses / escape route analyses onbehalf of ULSTEIN Sea of Solu-tions (whose client is Heerema), as

Safe return to port– Safety at Sea takes systematic approach

An evacuation analysis was carried out on behalf of Ulstein Sea ofSolutions (whose client is Heerema).

“Siem Mollie” (PSV VS 470 Mk II) bygget 2007 ved Aker Aukra errapportert solgt for ca. $32 millioner.

SKIPSREVYEN 1/2011 – 47

part of analyses required by Nor-wegian Maritime Directorate(NMD) regulations.

I-SYS uses a set of logical (Boo-lean) expressions to define physi-cal systems’ dependencies, inclu-ding equipment, piping, pumps,switchboards, cabling and tanks,and a set of Binary Decision Dia-grams to solve input equations. Afire or flooding casualty occurringwithin a space or group of spacesaffects directly or indirectly thesystems and functions embeddedwithin ship environment.

Essential functions includewater-tight compartments andtheir casualty threshold, firezones, considered discretely percompartment (in line with ship’sG.A.). – Results of the overallassessment are given in a form oflistings of systems affected by ana-lysed damage scenarios, said DrGuarin. – Additionally, for eachdamage scenario (or set of scenari-os) a list of unique “restoring solu-tions” can be generated. Thesesolutions provide guidance for eli-minating system vulnerabilities.

Where casualty scenarios inclu-ded Flooding to single WT com-partments, Fire casualty thresholdand the loss of single main verticalfire zones due to fire, Dr Guarinsaid the assessment of ship sys-tems’ capabilities covered the follo-wing scenarios:

Availability of essential systemsafter a flooding casualty, accordingto SOLAS regulation II-1/8-1;

Availability of essential systemsto support a ship’s safe return toport after a fire casualty, accordingto SOLAS regulation II-2/21; and

Availability of essential systemsto support a ship’s evacuation andabandonment after a fire casualty,according to SOLAS regulation II-2/22.

Future capabilityDr Guarin said that work wasrapidly developing to extend theuse of the I-SYS package. – So far,in general, the assessment hasbeen focused on evaluating sys-tems’ design. Watertight subdivisi-on is optimized separately (opti-mum A index, weight and tankconfiguration). It is our intentionin the short-term future to modifyand use the software to evaluatethe impact of subdivision on theSRTP capabilities. This requiresan interface linking automaticallythe systems’ components and thewatertight subdivision.

Already, however, the use of I-SYS had proved far-reaching forship designers. – Changes havebeen made to electric distributi-on/piping systems topology. So far,we have been able to identifymainly gaps in the electric distri-bution system and piping systems(e.g. lack of redundancy in pipingor cabling – various systems, lackof bypass and/or isolation valvesfor technical water).

– We have also already extendedthe package’s use to other systemsin the cruise ship context. Workingwith Royal Caribbean Internatio-nal, for example, we have used thesame modeling principles and ana-lysis approach in the “Istand” deci-sion support system software toverify the operability of bilge andballast systems and service tanks.A prototype of the software isbeing tested onboard «Oasis of theSeas». IStand is being developedby RCI, SaS and SSRC.

– In future, a major part of deve-lopment work will be to enhancethe user interface. Modeling of sys-tems and post-processing ofresults is currently rather timeconsuming but, based on the expe-rience so far, we are writing thespecification requirements for agraphical user interface that willallow importing watertight subdi-vision and A-class bulkheads geo-metric information into the sys-tems’ definition environment. Thenew GUI will also allow more effi-cient post-processing of results.

◆

ÅRETSGAVE!

BESTSELGERNE ER KUN TILGJENGELIGE PÅ DVD !

Filmserien kan bestilles pånettbutikk.skipsrevyen.no – www.skipsrevyen.no – tlf. 55 19 77 70

Bestselger

Bestselger

Electronic navigation speci-alist MARIS and wellknown training companySeagull have reached anagreement to develop acomprehensive product-specific computer-basedtraining ECDIS (ElectronicChart Display and Informa-tion System) module.

In order to replace paper charts,ECDIS systems must fulfill consi-derable technical requirements laiddown in the International Maritime

Organization ECDIS PerformanceStandards. New requirements forcompetence and training have beenamended in the STCW convention.As well as including approvedECDIS simulator training, thestandard opens up wider deliverysources of training, including onbo-ard instruction.

To meet the requirements, thechart data in use must be officialElectronic Chart Systems (ENCs)where these are available, while thegraphic display on the screen mustmeet the equipment-independent

specification. The equipment mustalso support the full range of navi-gational functions performed ontraditional paper charts.

Approved by a number of FlagStates, Seagull’s existing ECDISonboard training course includestraining in the use of ECDIS, chartprojections, chart accuracy, charttypes, chart datum, chart updating,sensor inputs and control, alarmand warning strategies, Radar andARPA information on ECDIS, androute planning.

Under the agreement, Seagullwill re-design the MARISECDIS900 Application Trainer tobe included in the Seagull library of

CBT-modules as “Product SpecificTraining” to meet latest revisions toSTCW, working on Seagull’s exis-ting CBT-based training adminis-trator.

Seagull Managing Director RogerRingstad said that the need for pro-duct-specific ECDIS training wasbecoming clear. – Used by qualifiednavigators these systems increasethe safety of navigation. However inthe hands of unqualified operatorsthey may contribute to misunder-standings and even accidents.Understanding the philosophy, limi-tations and features of ECDIS is amust.

◆

ECDIS training module launched