IHM documentation and management for ships 

August 24, 2020 Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

Metizoft provides a turnkey solution for Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM) for the maritime industry. The IHM monitors hazardous materials on board a ship.

Managing hazardous materials on board vessels in operation and during recycling at the end of a ship’s life is a major challenge.

The new IHM Convention requires registration of all hazardous components and materials used in the construction of a ship and its equipment. Each subsequent owner of the ship is required to record any changes in materials or equipment throughout the ship’s life cycle. The IHM report must be delivered to the recycling facility when the ship is sent for scrapping or recycling.

IHM for optimal safety

Metizoft offers a certified IHM system that is in line with regulations such as the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Hong Kong Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships and the EU Ship Recycling Regulation. The IHM system can handle the documentation process for the ship’s entire life cycle, monitoring more than 20 types of hazardous materials, including asbestos, PCBs and CFCs.

A real-time updated IHM helps the ship’s crew to manage hazardous materials by taking the necessary safety precautions. For example, if a significant amount of asbestos is found on board a vessel, Metizoft creates an asbestos management plan.

The IHM also makes it is easy to create a recycling plan with focus on worker safety. By knowing beforehand where hazardous materials are located, ship recycling workers can avoid exposure to these harmful substances.

Concrete benefits

Metizoft’s solution can be used for all types of vessels and maritime constructions that fall under the IHM Convention.

As a HazMat Expert company with certified IHM inspectors, Metizoft can handle the IHM for both new and existing vessels. An existing vessel without an IHM is required to have an inspection performed by certified personnel. Inspectors enter the ship to take samples to check for hazardous materials. These are then sent to a certified laboratory. The inspection and lab results are documented in an IHM report. Once the IHM report is approved, Metizoft can assist in keeping the IHM up to date.

Metizoft and its subsidiaries are certified by DNV GL, ABS, Lloyd’s Register and BV.

IHM inspection onboard a vessel.

IHM inspection onboard a vessel.

Metizoft AS

Market potential

By the end of 2020, approximately 30 000 ships worldwide will be required to have a real-time updated IHM on board to avoid violation of the EU Ship Recycling Regulation. It is estimated that approximately 60 000 vessels worldwide will be affected by the IMO’s Hong Kong Convention.

IHM software. Once a vessel has an IHM, regulations require a system and a designated person that will keep the IHM up to date throughout the ship’s life cycle.

theexplorer

CTI Group appoints Senior Vice President, Global Maritime Business

August 6, 2020 Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

The Centre Testing International Group (CTI) announces the appointment of Captain Herbert Soanes to oversee its Global Maritime Business. In making this key appointment, CTI seeks to fortify and expand its client relations across the globe. As Senior Vice President managing Global Maritime Client Relations, Soanes will be based in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Previously, Soanes was Misuga Group’s Chief Commercial Officer for Europe and the Americas; prior to which he was Senior Vice President at DVB Bank, responsible for risk mitigation functions in its global shipping and offshore business.

CTI Group is publicly listed with revenues approaching half a billion US Dollars and with over 8,000 employees in businesses spanning industrial and consumer environmental testing. The Maritime Division is headquartered in Singapore and is the industry leader in the investigation, lab testing and mitigation of hazardous substances including asbestos.

CTI’s General Manager, John Ren Di said: “Captain Soanes brings a wealth of experience to his responsibilities, as we seek to provide our global customers with the world’s best service in the areas of Inventory Hazardous Materials (IHM) preparation, maintenance, mitigation management as well as in the consultancy related to the lifecycle of their maritime assets.”

Source: The Maritime Executive

Norway to fund $1.5mn for improved ship…

August 6, 2020 Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

Specific technical assistance will be provided to establish a facility for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes

Norway has committed approximately US $1.5 million (14m Norwegian Krone) to support improved ship recycling in Bangladesh.

The third phase of an International Maritime Organization (IMO)-implemented project to enhance safe and environmentally sound ship recycling in Bangladesh has been given the go-ahead, said the IMO.

SENSREC Phase III will focus on improving ship recycling standards in compliance with the Hong Kong Convention and enhancing capacity building for the Government of Bangladesh on legislation and knowledge management.

Specific technical assistance will be provided to the Government of Bangladesh to establish a facility for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes.

There will also be a focus on evaluating the impact of Covid-19 on the ship recycling industry in Bangladesh

The agreement between IMO and the Government of Norway to support Phase III of the project on Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling in Bangladesh (SENSREC) was signed on July 24.

This will pave the way for Bangladesh to move forward on its path towards becoming a party to the IMO Hong Kong Convention, the treaty that will set global standards for safe and environmentally-sound ship recycling, IMO said.

The Agreement follows the successful implementation of Phase I (2015-17) and Phase II (2018 – 2020) of the SENSREC Project, both mainly funded by Norway.

With the additional funding, Phase III of the project will be implemented over 18 months, starting from November 2020.

SENSREC Phase III will focus on improving ship recycling standards in compliance with the Hong Kong Convention and enhancing capacity building for the Government of Bangladesh on legislation and knowledge management.

Specific technical assistance will be provided to the Government of Bangladesh to establish a facility for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes.

There will also be a focus on evaluating the impact of Covid-19 on the ship recycling industry in Bangladesh.

Former asmbassador of Norway to Bangladesh Sidsel Bleken said that the SENSREC Project had already achieved significant progress, thanks to the commitment of the Government authorities as well as the ship-recycling industry of Bangladesh.

She said Norway is pleased to extend its support to Bangladesh and their thanks go to IMO for their important role in this Project.

 

“Through IMO, we will continue to support the authorities, the industry, and other stakeholders in strengthening their efforts to develop Bangladesh’s ship-recycling industry and the country’s economy. We hope to see more yards complying with the requirements of the Hong Kong Convention, so that Bangladesh can be ready to accede to the Convention in the soonest possible time,” Bleken said.

The Agreement was signed by Bleken and IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim.

Thanking the Government of Norway for their generous contribution, Lim said the continuation of this project will greatly enhance national capacities for Bangladesh for safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships.

“The success of this Phase III of the project will be seen in the crucial technical assistance role that will support the goals of Bangladesh to establish a facility for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes and ultimately support its aim to accede to the Hong Kong Convention.”

The Hong Kong Convention

The Hong Kong Convention1 covers the design, construction, operation and maintenance of ships to ensure they can be recycled safely and in an environment-friendly way at the end of their lives.

It also deals with how ships should be prepared for their final voyage to a recycling facility, without compromising their safety or operational efficiency.

Under the Hong Kong Convention, ships sent for recycling are required to carry an inventory of all hazardous materials on board.

Ship recycling facilities are required to provide a “Ship Recycling Plan”, specifying how each ship will be recycled, based on its particular characteristics and its inventory of hazardous materials.

The treaty will enter into force 24 months after three separate criteria have been met.

It must be ratified by 15 States – but these States must represent 40% of world merchant shipping by gross tonnage, and a combined maximum annual ship recycling volume (during the preceding 10 years) of not less than 3% of their combined gross tonnage.

The number of States2 required has now been reached, but further tonnage and recycling volumes are needed before the convention can enter into force.

The top five ship recycling countries in the world, between them accounting for more than 98% of all ship recycling by gross tonnage3, are Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan and Turkey (of these, two are already Parties to the Hong Kong Convention  – India and Turkey).

Source: banginews

Carnival Corporation commits to responsible ship recycling

August 6, 2020 Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

Days after video surfaced showing the Carnival Fantasy being beached at a scrapping facility in Turkey, Carnival Corporation & plc (NYSE/LSE: CCL;NYSE: CUK) released details of its ship recycling plans. It said it had reached agreement with two Turkish companies —Ege Celik and Simsekler — to responsibly dismantle and recycle the Carnival Fantasy and Carnival Inspiration.

Carnival Corporation worked with the environmental non-profit Bellona Foundation – a lead partner in the NGO Shipbreaking Platform – and green ship recycling specialist Sea2Cradle to formulate an approach to dismantling and recycling the ships. The organizations also helped identify best-in-class certified maritime vessel retirement solutions worldwide that are able to reuse, reclaim and recycle retired ships in support of Carnival Corporation’s commitment to a sustainable cruise industry.

“Our highest responsibility and top priorities are compliance, environmental protection, and the health, safety and well-being of our guests, the communities we visit and our crew,” said Bill Burke, chief maritime officer for Carnival Corporation. “That commitment extends to our cruise ships, starting from the moment a ship becomes part of our fleet and continuing all the way through to its retirement. In addition to limiting our vessels’ impact on the environment throughout their service time in our fleet, recycling our retired ships following the European Ship Recycling Regulation ensures we are applying the highest global standards and contributing to a sustainable cruise industry.”

After an intensive review of sustainable ship recycling facilities, Carnival Corporation selected Ege Celik and Simsekler based on their track records of compliance with key national and international environmental agreements and regulations. Both recycling companies are certified by the Hong Kong Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships. They are also strictly required to adhere to a complex matrix of global standards set forth by the European Union (EU), International Maritime Organization (IMO), International Labor Organization (ILO) and the Basel Convention multilateral environmental agreement.

Carnival Corporation says that the recycling companies will formulate a Ship Recycle Plan for each vessel that goes beyond what is required by consulting with Carnival Corporation’s advisor Sea2Cradle to ensure optimal compliance with key national and international environmental standards. Each plan will include a complete inventory of hazardous and regulated materials and the procedures planned for safely removing and processing them in an environmentally friendly way. Once these materials are safely removed and processed, the companies will begin dismantling each ship.

Ships will be stripped of machinery, electronic equipment, glass, wood and other materials that can be directly recycled for reuse in new ships, used in ship repair or repurposed for other applications. Steel and metal scrap will be salvaged and recycled for direct use or be sent to the mill for producing other products and goods. Working on behalf of Carnival Corporation and as an added assurance, Sea2Cradle will supervise ship dismantling and recycling at the demolition yards throughout the entire process to ensure the highest health, safety and environmental standards are maintained.

“We are proud to collaborate with Carnival Corporation for the clean and safe recycling of their retired cruise vessels,” said Wouter Rozenveld, director, Sea2Cradle. “We recently carried out the Inventory of hazardous materials that will form the basis of a unique ship recycling plan created for each vessel.”

“Our experienced supervisors will be present at the yard during the entire recycling process, to ensure the recycling plan is adhered to and that all health, safety and environmental measures are followed,” added Rozenveld. “We will also see to it that non-recyclable materials are being disposed of and treated properly, and we will remain on-site until the last piece of steel is brought to the smelter to produce new products.”

Sigurd Enge, Bellona Foundation head of shipping & Arctic issues, said: “Bellona Foundation endorses Carnival Corporation’s decision to responsibly recycle their retired ships in Turkey, and we applaud them for leading the way to responsible management throughout the lifecycle of their ships. Dismantling a cruise ship is complex, involving many components for reuse, recycling and waste for deposition. We are grateful for Carnival Corporation’s commitment to performing the recycling in a proper way to avoid pollution and to safeguard the environment.”

Source: marinelog

Ship recycling in Bangladesh leaps forward with third phase of key project signed

August 6, 2020 Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

The third phase of an IMO-implemented project to enhance safe and environmentally sound ship recycling in Bangladesh has been given the go-ahead, with Norway committing approximately US$1.5 million (14 million Norwegian Kroner) to support improved ship recycling in Bangladesh.

The agreement between IMO and the Government of Norway to support Phase III of the project on Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling in Bangladesh (SENSREC) was signed on 24 July 2020. This will pave the way for Bangladesh to move forward on its path towards becoming a party to the IMO Hong Kong Convention, the treaty that will set global standards for safe and environmentally-sound ship recycling.

The Agreement follows the successful implementation of Phase I (2015-17) and Phase II (2018 – 2020) of the SENSREC Project, both mainly funded by Norway. With the additional funding, Phase III of the project will be implemented over 18 months, starting from November 2020.

SENSREC Phase III will focus on improving ship recycling standards in compliance with the Hong Kong Convention and enhancing capacity building for the Government of Bangladesh on legislation and knowledge management. Specific technical assistance will be provided to the Government of Bangladesh to establish a facility for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. There will also be a focus on evaluating the impact of Covid-19 on the ship recycling industry in Bangladesh.

The Ambassador of Norway to Bangladesh, Ms Sidsel Bleken, said that the SENSREC Project had already achieved significant progress, thanks to the commitment of the Government authorities as well as the ship-recycling industry of Bangladesh.

“Norway is pleased to extend its support to Bangladesh and our thanks go to IMO for their important role in this Project. Through IMO, we will continue to support the authorities, the industry, and other stakeholders in strengthening their efforts to develop Bangladesh’s ship-recycling industry and the country’s economy. We hope to see more yards complying with the requirements of the Hong Kong Convention, so that Bangladesh can be ready to accede to the Convention in the soonest possible time,” Her Excellency Ms Bleken said.

The Agreement was signed by the Her Excellency Ms. Bleken and IMO Secretary-General Mr. Kitack Lim.

Thanking the Government of Norway for their generous contribution, Mr. Lim said, “The continuation of this project will greatly enhance national capacities for Bangladesh for safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships. The success of this Phase III of the project will be seen in the crucial technical assistance role that will support the goals of Bangladesh to establish a facility for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes and ultimately support its aim to accede to the Hong Kong Convention.”

The Hong Kong Convention

The Hong Kong Convention1 covers the design, construction, operation and maintenance of ships to ensure they can be recycled safely and in an environment-friendly way at the end of their lives. It also deals with how ships should be prepared for their final voyage to a recycling facility, without compromising their safety or operational efficiency.

Under the Hong Kong Convention, ships sent for recycling are required to carry an inventory of all hazardous materials on board. Ship recycling facilities are required to provide a “Ship Recycling Plan”, specifying how each ship will be recycled, based on its particular characteristics and its inventory of hazardous materials.

The treaty will enter into force 24 months after three separate criteria have been met. It must be ratified by 15 States – but these States must represent 40% of world merchant shipping by gross tonnage, and a combined maximum annual ship recycling volume (during the preceding 10 years) of not less than 3% of their combined gross tonnage.

The number of States2 required has now been reached, but further tonnage and recycling volumes are needed before the convention can enter into force.

The top five ship recycling countries in the world, between them accounting for more than 98% of all ship recycling by gross tonnage3, are Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan and Turkey (of these, two are already Parties to the Hong Kong Convention  – India and Turkey).

1.  Full title: The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009

2. The Contracting States at 28/07/2020 are: Belgium, Congo, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Japan, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Serbia and Turkey. They between them represent nearly 30% of world merchant shipping tonnage.

3. Read more here.

The Collision Regulations and Autonomous Shipping

August 6, 2020 GENERAL

In the May 2019 edition of Legalseas, we reflected on the implication of the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Evergreen Marine v Nautical Challenge (Evergreen) when considering the interaction (and interpretation) of the Collision Regulations (COLREGs) (specifically the crossing rule (Rule 15) and narrow channel rule (Rule 9)) in circumstances when they appeared to conflict.In this edition, we consider how the facts in Evergreen demonstrate the challenges faced by those developing autonomous vessels and particularly the algorithm-based navigational systems which will need to interpret the Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGs). We have used the Evergreen case to consider circumstances where obligations under the COLREGs appear to conflict and speculate how the outcome may have differed if both or either the Ever Smart (the at-fault vessel) and Alexandra I (the inbound vessel) were fully autonomous.

COLREGs and Automation

The regulatory framework governing safe navigation has historically been premised on objective rules interpreted through a human element; for example the “manning” of ships, the “charge of a master,” or taking precautions required by the “ordinary practice of seaman.” Subjective standards are pervasive throughout the UN Law of the Sea Convention 1982, IMO Regulations, domestic shipping legislation, including the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and civil liability conventions.

The COLREGs are particularly relevant in this regard. Since 1977, seafarers have been obliged to comply with the COLREGs on issues of collision avoidance and, indeed, courts have interpreted the COLREGs when apportioning liability arising from collisions. Being practical rules, having as their primary object the prevention of collisions at sea, the COLREGs provide objective guidance on vessel priority but also necessitate (subjective) deviations from the rules, in accordance with the ordinary practice of seamen if the circumstance requires. By way of example, COLREGs, Rule 2 states, “Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.” This subjective interpretation of an objective rulebook highlights the inherent challenge in automating deviations from a set of rules, absent a human element.

There has been significant discussion across the shipping industry as to whether unmanned or fully AI-enabled vessels can strictly comply with provisions under the current COLREGs, including on Rule 2 (responsibility), Rule 8 (action to avoid-collision) with regard to the seamanship standard, Rule 5 (look-out), and Rule 18 (responsibilities between vessels) with regard to vessels “under command.”

Various research studies conducted over the course of the past 12 to 18 months have allegedly demonstrated that autonomous vessels can meet (or exceed) the current COLREGs collision avoidance rules. Rolls Royce’s MAXCMAS project (Machine Executable Collision Regulations for Marine Autonomous Systems), in partnership with Lloyd’s Register (amongst others), claim to have developed an algorithm–enabling, AI-based navigational system to effectively enact the COLREGs rules in a manner that is “indistinguishable from good seafarer behaviour,” even in circumstances “when the give-way vessel isn’t taking appropriate action.” The latter will be essential when both autonomous vessels and manned vessels are trying to keep out of the way of one another.

While this article does not seek to address issues of strict compliance, the case of Evergreen demonstrates two issues: (i) that the identity of the “give way” vessel may not always be readily apparent to experienced deck officers; and (ii) that “good seafarer behaviour”, in the context of apportioning liability, is not a fixed standard – it is a product of factual circumstance, interpreted through the (various) rules of the COLREGs, past case law, and the views of expert nautical assessors (the Elder Brethren of Trinity House) post-event. Just as one of the dilemmas facing masters and bridge watch keepers is what to do when faced with a situation where obligations under the COLREGs appear to conflict, those developing autonomous shipping solutions must equally grapple with the same dilemmas; save that they have to program these decisions pre-event in a way that is predictable or the system will have to apply machine learning to be able to comply with the Rules.

In this article we assume that the 1972 COLREGs are applicable to both manned vessels and vessels controlled by AI. The issue of whether an autonomous ship can be programmed to determine whether Section II – Conduct of vessels in sight of one another (Rules 11-18) and Section III – Conduct of vessels in restricted visibility (Rule 19) of Part B – Steering and sailing rules, applies to a developing close quarters situation is an important one but while manned and unmanned ships are sharing the same waterways, then it will be essential that both comply with the same rules. We discuss the issues arising from this assumption at the end of this article.

Below, we have considered whether, on the facts in Evergreen, two autonomous vessels would have been able to avoid a collision. In doing so, we also consider a number of the challenges facing developers of maritime AI solutions from a collision liability perspective.

Discussion

Rule of Law

Counsel for Ever Smart (the at-fault vessel) argued on appeal that “there was no rule of law” as to the priority of the narrow channel rule (Rule 9) in a crossing vessel situation (Rule 15). When interpreting the interaction of Rule 15 and Rule 9, the first instance judge relied (with some emphasis) on statements of principle from two non-binding cases with a similar (although not identical) fact pattern, The Canberra Star [1962] and Kulemesin v HKSAR [2013]; the former a first instance decision and the latter a decision of a foreign court in criminal proceedings. While persuasive, neither case proffered definitive ratio (a finding that sets a legal precedent); the first instance judge chose to apply the statements of principle – both because of the “experience and knowledge” of the respective trial judges and also because he agreed with them – he was not, however, strictly bound to do so.

In determining whether the crossing rule applied, the first instance judge had considered whether Alexandra I was on a “sufficiently defined course.” There is no strict requirement under Rule 15 of the COLREGs that a vessel must be on a sufficiently defined course (or indeed any course) in order to be subject to the rule. The principle was established by Lord Wright in The Alcoa Rambler [1949]. Alexandra I’s course made good varied between 081 and 127 degrees at about 1-2 knots over the ground. She had traveled less than a mile in approximately 20 minutes. The court was satisfied that this was not ‘sufficiently defined’ to be considered a course, notwithstanding the constant south-easterly heading, and instead described Alexandra I as “waiting for the pilot vessel to arrive.” Consequently she was not bound by Rule 15 as she was not on a course that was crossing with that of the Ever Smart.

Neither the court of first instance nor the Court of Appeal provided additional clarification as to when a vessel (either by speed or by line or heading) will be deemed to be on a sufficiently constant course. Rather, the test appears to require an observer (who has spent “sufficient time” observing the vessel) to ascertain if the vessel is not on a defined course (i.e. constantly changing her heading). In the context of automation, this raises an obvious concern. For example, had Alexandra I been travelling at three knots, would that have made a material difference? Equally, had her course made good varied by a lesser degree (say between 90 and 110 degrees), would the system have drawn a different conclusion? What degree of variation would an AI system require to deem another vessel to be on a constant course?

If this situation was not apparent to two experienced masters, and at Court required an application of case law to determine the obligations of the two vessels, then is it likely that two autonomous vessels would have definitively been able to identify their respective obligations under the COLREGs? The very fact that permission to appeal was granted with respect to the issue of priority demonstrates that there was uncertainty as to the application of the narrow channel rule, and indeed this uncertainty would have arguably been amplified had the approach of Alexandra I been from the East (i.e. the hypothetical East to West scenario that the Elder Brethren were asked to comment on by the Court of Appeal judges) and not from the West. Further, absent clear guidance on when a vessel will be considered to be on a “sufficiently defined course,” it remains unclear as to whether a crossing situation could arise in the same or similar factual circumstance if the speed or bearing of Alexandra I had been more established. Even with the use of advanced algorithms, this may be a difficult puzzle for an autonomous system to solve.

Notwithstanding this conclusion, it is possible that autonomous vessels may have been able to avoid a collision, or at least may have acted so as to reduce the damage sustained from the collision, by correcting the “human errors” that were identified as increasing the causative potency of the respective masters’ actions.

As a general comment, many maritime casualties are not caused by one catastrophic mistake or failure; rather they are caused by a series of isolated minor decisions or circumstances which, in combination, result in the incident. To use a modern analogy, the holes in the Swiss cheese line up. These errors include the officer on watch (OOW) not following the correct procedure or missing some warning sign whether it be from the echo sounder, Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS), automatic radar plotting aid (ARPA) or visually. The OOW is often distracted and can be mentally overloaded by the pressure of the environment and the flood of information, particularly in congested waters. AI would presumably not be distracted in this way and would not miss a warning sign.

Contributing human errors

The location of Alexandra I

There is reason to question why Alexandra I was present at the approach to the narrow channel in the first instance; both as a result of her early arrival to the approach channel (by 25 minutes or so) and the port Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Officer’s approval for Alexandra 1 to proceed to the channel entrance buoys when Ever Smart was travelling outbound from Jebel Ali. In addition to her proximity to the end of the channel, Alexandra I’s AIS was not operating at the time of the incident, making her less visible to local traffic, and she was criticized for maintaining a poor aural lookout – mistaking a VHF conversation between Port Control and a local tug boat.

While these contributing errors do little to exonerate the actions of Ever Smart from a liability perspective, it is anticipated that autonomous vessels will (by necessity) operate using enhanced AIS, GPS and radar, in addition to a full suite of sensors and cameras (including thermal and infrared), and will adopt predictive control algorithms to track and anticipate future vessel movements and respond accordingly.

Within congested or restricted shipping areas, automated VTS (or eNAV) will likely be implemented to ensure that vessels manoeuvring within a restricted area are informed of potential collision risks in real time – indeed, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore has already trialled Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze marine traffic risks in the Singapore Strait. The provisional results demonstrate that the technology has the ability to “quantify risk in more detail and more quickly than it could be detected by human operators.”

Standardized messaging formats, including the use of hybrid messaging services such as a VHF Data Exchange Systems (VDES), supported by satellite as opposed to (or in addition to) radio frequencies, also have the potential to reduce miscommunication and increase the speed at which collision threats are communicated – absent the risk of misunderstanding (not identifying the relevant vessel) or miscomprehension (not understanding the VHF message due to linguistic or technological restrictions).

While these technologies are still being trialed, their potential to identify and report a collision risk, when applied to the factual scenario in Evergreen, may very well have highlighted the potential for collision between Alexandra I and Ever Smart substantially sooner than the “three seconds” in which the master of Ever Smart came to realise that a collision was inevitable.

The faults of Ever Smart

The first instance judge concluded that the actions of Ever Smart in proceeding along the port side of the narrow channel, in addition to her excessive speed at 11.8 knots and failure to keep a good visual lookout, had the greatest ‘causative potency’ in causing the damage that resulted from the collision.

Notwithstanding the arguments of the master of Ever Smart as to why he chose not to proceed to the starboard side (namely that he was not required to under the crossing rules), developments in the software designed to assist with unmanned or autonomous navigation could readily ensure that, within a narrow channel, both inbound and outbound vessel proceed on the starboard side (insofar as is practicable for it to do so) at pre-set maximum (safe) speeds.

Modern manned vessels are already equipped with Electronic Nautical Chart Systems (ECDIS), which are in turn linked to speed and depth sensors, as well as GPS and AIS. Implementing these systems to operate autonomously would allow Port Control (with the assistance of relevant hydrographic offices in creating/amending the charts) to better control speed limits, both during ordinary navigation but also when vessels are navigating within pre-specified distances of each other, to ensure that ‘safe speed’ is observed. While these restrictions do not, in themselves, eradicate the risk of collision, they do reduce the scope of likely damage arising from collisions.

With respect to Ever Smart’s failure to keep a good visual lookout, thermal and infrared high resolution cameras have the ability to identify objects when the human eye cannot. While the master of Ever Smart was only able to make out Alexandra I when she turned her deck lights on (three seconds before the collision) – modern cameras may have picked up Alexandra I ‘s heat signature, if not her outline using infrared, significantly earlier than the master.

Potential Issues

While technological advancements undoubtedly demonstrate the potential that autonomous vessels have in reducing collision risk, developers are faced with a number of problems that cannot be readily surmounted.

Unlike our past experience of large-scale adoption of autonomously-controlled machines, there will necessarily be a period in which autonomous, unmanned and manned vessels will navigate in the same waterways. Until there is clear guidance to the contrary, the expectation will be that the human standard will apply. It is relevant to note in this regard that case law has established that overreliance on technology will not satisfy the principles of good seamanship and, in any case, there is currently no case law considering a collision between a manned and unmanned or autonomous Vessel.

The duties under COLREGs differ whether Section II or Section III applies. Section II – Conduct of vessels in sight of one another (Rules 11-18) and Section III – Conduct of vessels in restricted visibility (Rule 19) of Part B – Steering and sailing rules, separately apply to a developing close quarters situation depending on the visibility. As part of applying the COLREGs to manned and unmanned ships, the AI systems will have to be able to understand the limitations of human eyesight to determine whether a manned ship is “not in sight” and then to follow Rule 19, instead of following Rules 11-18.

The fact that the AI system might have infra-red or night vision and therefore is able to “see” the other vessel would not be permitted to change the position, in fog for example, that the vessels are not “in sight” of one another. Alternatively should the regulators remove Rule 19 from the COLREGs altogether as a result of advances in technology on all ships (better radars, ARPA, AIS, better navigation systems, infra-red cameras etc) and rely only on Rule 6 (Safe Speed) and Section II? Rule 19 has been confusing generations of seafarers since 1977 so their deletion may not be mourned. But either way, it is hard to see how regulators can allow autonomous ships to sail the oceans while the COLREGs contain two sets of steering and sailing rules.

There will be a risk to software developers and Owners of autonomous vessels alike. Developers of marine Al systems are not only required to codify compliance with the seamanship standard currently in use, but are also required to produce algorithms that allow autonomous vessels to interact with manned vessels, unmanned (remote controlled) vessels and truly autonomous vessels in a way that is predictable to each of them; irrespective of the differing states of technology on-board (for example, autonomous vessels may be required to interpret standard frequency VHF messages even when equipped with a VDES system).

But even if the COLREGs were unambiguous, comprehensive and consistent (which they are not), then we still would not normally programm systems to have no discretion at all. This is because situations always exist where the best course of action is to ignore or break the rules and designers of systems cannot identify all these exceptional situations in advance. Therefore machine learning will be required which must learn the necessary navigational behaviors to avoid or mitigate collisions, even given (indeed, especially given) ambiguous and conflicting regulations, just as human navigators do. But, of course, effective machine learning is only possible with sufficient data, and particularly data arising from collisions or near misses (what CS people call “edge cases”).

Liability

Despite all of that, accidents may still occur. Given that there is no case law on the matter, third party liability in the event of a collision involving an autonomous vessel is not yet clear. It is possible that developers may be liable for collision damage if it can be proven that a fault in programming onboard systems or in the way the machine learning has developed caused (or contributed to) a collision. Would such fault be akin to unseaworthiness? Would the software writers need to be covered by collision insurance?

In addition, there are also ethical considerations as to how an autonomous vessel should be programmed in scenarios in which AI is required to choose between loss or damage to its own vessel or cargo, and loss of human life or serious pollution (and the inevitable concerns that this may have from a liability perspective to developers, owners and insurers alike).

Consideration must also be given to future scenarios in which an autonomous vessel suffers a catastrophic failure – the worst case scenario being a complete electrical breakdown (for example, as a result of generator failure, cyber-attack, or electro-magnetic disruption). The vessel may no longer be a vessel “under command” for the purposes of the COLREGs, however it may also be restricted in its ability to communicate this to nearby vessels or to shore based control centres in the absence of a ‘non-digital’ Master – who may still have the benefit of a satellite phone or, in the traditional way, hoist two black balls to the top of the mast.

Conclusion

Evergreen demonstrates that autonomous vessels may have struggled in those circumstances to definitively identify their respective obligations under the COLREGs due to the inherent ambiguity in priority. It remains unclear as to whether other factual scenarios can demonstrate similar ambiguities in priority between various rules of the COLREGs and it may be found necessary to review the COLREGs to remove as much uncertainty as possible. That said, no amount of redrafting will be able to give conclusive meaning to phrases such as “which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case” – Rule 2 – Responsibility.

Evergreen does, however, demonstrate that two autonomous vessels may have been able to identify the collision risk earlier than the Masters of Ever Smart and Alexandra I were able to, principally as a result of enhanced communications, audio-visual and locational technology. Programming of systems should prevent excessive speeds in narrow channels and prevent vessels loitering in hazardous positions. An earlier identification of the potential collision risk could have reduced, or altogether removed, the risk of collision and consequent damage sustained by Alexandra I making the question of a “sufficiently defined course” completely redundant.

Source: nortonrosefulbright

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Impact on Autonomous Ships Market Outlook By Size, Share, Future Growth and Forecast From 2021-2026

August 4, 2020 Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

Jul 21, 2020 (AmericaNewsHour) — Kenneth Research has published a detailed report on Autonomous Ships Market which has been categorized by market size, growth indicators and encompasses detailed market analysis on macro trends and region-wise growth in North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Middle East & Africa region. The report also includes the challenges that are affecting the growth of the industry and offers strategic evaluation that is required to boost the growth of the market over the period of 2020-2025.

Industry Insights

The report covers the forecast and analysis of the Autonomous Ships Market on a global and regional level. The study provides historical data from 2015 to 2019 along with a forecast from 2020 to 2025 based on revenue (USD Billion). The study includes drivers and restraints of the Autonomous Ships Market along with the impact they have on the demand over the forecast period. Additionally, the report includes the study of opportunities available in the Autonomous Ships Market on a global level.

we have included a competitive landscape and an analysis of Porter’s Five Forces model for the market. The study encompasses a market attractiveness analysis, wherein all the segments are benchmarked based on their market size, growth rate, and general attractiveness.

Click Here to Download Sample Report >>  https://www.kennethresearch.com/sample-request-10305395

Summary
Next generation modular control systems and communications technology will enable wireless monitoring and control functions both on and off board. These will include advanced decision support systems to provide a capability to operate ships remotely under semi or fully autonomous control.

The report forecast global Autonomous Ships market to grow to reach xxx Million USD in 2020 with a CAGR of xx% during the period 2020-2025.

The report offers detailed coverage of Autonomous Ships industry and main market trends. The market research includes historical and forecast market data, demand, application details, price trends, and company shares of the leading Autonomous Ships  by geography. The report splits the market size, by volume and value, on the basis of application type and geography.

First, this report covers the present status and the future prospects of the global Autonomous Ships  market for 2015-2025.

And in this report, we analyze global market from 5 geographies: Asia-Pacific[China, Southeast Asia, India, Japan, Korea, Western Asia], Europe[Germany, UK, France, Italy, Russia, Spain, Netherlands, Turkey, Switzerland], North America[United States, Canada, Mexico], Middle East & Africa[GCC, North Africa, South Africa], South America[Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Chile, Peru].

At the same time, we classify Autonomous Ships according to the type, application by geography. More importantly, the report includes major countries market based on the type and application.

Finally, the report provides detailed profile and data information analysis of leading Autonomous Ships company.

By Region
**Asia-Pacific[China, Southeast Asia, India, Japan, Korea, Western Asia] **Europe[Germany, UK, France, Italy, Russia, Spain, Netherlands, Turkey, Switzerland] **North America[United States, Canada, Mexico] **Middle East & Africa[GCC, North Africa, South Africa] **South America[Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Chile, Peru]

Key Companies
*Kongsberg
*Rolls-Royce
*ASV
*DARPA
*NYK Line
*Mitsui O.S.K. Lines
*HNA Group

Market by Type
*Maritime Autonomous Ships
*Small Autonomous Ships

Market by Application
*Commercial & Scientific
*Military & Security

The report covers the forecast and analysis of the Autonomous Ships Market on a global and regional level. The study provides historical data from 2015 to 2019 along with a forecast from 2020-2025 based on revenue (USD Million). In 2018, the worldwide GDP stood at USD 84,740.3 Billion as compared to the GDP of USD 80,144.5 Billion in 2017, marked a growth of 5.73% in 2018 over previous year according to the data quoted by International Monetary Fund. This is likely to impel the growth of Autonomous Ships Market over the period 2020-2025.

Request For Full Report >> https://www.kennethresearch.com/sample-request-10305395

Competitive Analysis:
The Autonomous Ships Market report examines competitive scenario by analyzing key players in the market. The company profiling of leading market players is included in this report with Porter’s five forces analysis and Value Chain analysis. Further, the strategies exercised by the companies for expansion of business through mergers, acquisitions, and other business development measures are discussed in the report. The financial parameters which are assessed include the sales, profits and the overall revenue generated by the key players of Market.

Key points covered in this report:
*The historical and current data is provided in the report based on which the future projections are made and the industry analysis is performed.
*The import and export details along with consumption value and production capability of every region is mentioned in the report.
*Porter’s five forces analysis, value chain analysis, SWOT analysis are some additional important parameters used for the analysis of market growth.
*The report provides the clients with the facts and figures about the market on the basis of evaluation of the industry through primary and secondary research methodologies.

ANSWERED TO THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS :

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE REPORT?
This market study covers the global and regional market with an in-depth analysis of the overall growth prospects in the market. Furthermore, it sheds light on the comprehensive competitive landscape of the global market. The report further offers a dashboard overview of leading companies encompassing their successful marketing strategies, market contribution, recent developments in both historic and present contexts.

WHAT ARE THE KEY SEGMENTS IN THE MARKET?
*By product type
*By End User/Applications
*By Technology
*By Region

WHICH MARKET DYNAMICS AFFECTS THE BUSINESS?
The report provides a detailed evaluation of the market by highlighting information on different aspects which include drivers, restraints, opportunities, and threats. This information can help stakeholders to make appropriate decisions before investing.

Key Topic Covered in this Report
*Market Growth Opportunities
*Leading Market Players
*Market Size and Growth Rate
*Market Growth Drivers
*Company Market Share
*Market Trends and Technological

The Autonomous Ships Market report highlight the economy, past and emerging trend of industry, and availability of basic resources. Furthermore, the market report explains development trend, analysis of upstream raw materials, downstream demand, and current market dynamics is also carried out. In the end, the report makes some important proposals for a new project of Autonomous Ships Market before evaluating its possibility.

Table of Contents
Part 1 Market Overview
1.1 Market Definition
1.2 Market Development
1.3 By Type
Table Type of Autonomous Ships
Figure Global Autonomous Ships Market Share by Type in 2020
1.4 By Application
Table Application of Autonomous Ships
Figure Global Autonomous Ships Market Share by Application in 2020
1.5 Region Overview
Table Region of Autonomous Ships
Figure Global Autonomous Ships Market Share by Region in 2020
Part 2 Global Market Status and Future Forecast
2.1 Global Market by Region
Table Global Autonomous Ships Market by Region, 2015-2019 (Million USD)
Figure Global Autonomous Ships Market Share by Region in 2020 (Million USD)
Table Price List by Region, 2015-2019
2.2 Global Market by Company
Table Global Autonomous Ships Market by Company, 2015-2019 (Million USD)
Figure Global Autonomous Ships Market Share by Company in 2020 (Million USD)
Table Price List by Company, 2015-2019
2.3 Global Market by Type
Table Global Autonomous Ships Market by Type, 2015-2019 (Million USD)
Figure Global Autonomous Ships Market Share by Type in 2020 (Million USD)
Table Price List by Type, 2015-2019
2.4 Global Market by Application
Table Global Autonomous Ships Market by Application, 2015-2019 (Million USD)
Figure Global Autonomous Ships Market Share by Application in 2020 (Million USD)
Table Price List by Application, 2015-2019
2.5 Global Market by Forecast
Figure Global Autonomous Ships Market Forecast, 2020-2024 (Million USD)
Part 3 Asia-Pacific Market Status and Future Forecast
3.1 Asia-Pacific Market by Company
Table Asia-Pacific Autonomous Ships Market by Company, 2015-2019 (Million USD)
Figure Asia-Pacific Autonomous Ships Market Share by Company in 2020 (Million USD)
Table Price List by Company, 2015-2019
3.2 Asia-Pacific Market by Type
Table Asia-Pacific Autonomous Ships Market by Type, 2015-2019 (Million USD)
Figure Asia-Pacific Autonomous Ships Market Share by Type in 2020 (Million USD)
Table Price List by Type, 2015-2019

About Kenneth Research:
Kenneth Research is a reselling agency which focuses on multi-client market research database. The primary goal of the agency is to help industry professionals including various individuals and organizations gain an extra edge of competitiveness and help them identify the market trends and scope. The quality reports provided by the agency aims to make decision making easier for industry professionals and take firm decisions which helps them to form strategies after complete assessment of the market. Some of the industries under focus include healthcare & pharmaceuticals, ICT & Telecom, automotive and transportation, energy and power, chemicals, FMCG, food and beverages, aerospace and defense and others. Kenneth Research also focuses on strategic business consultancy services and offers a single platform for the best industry market research reports.

Source: marketwatch

Autonomous Ships In- Seafarers Out?

August 4, 2020 CYBER SECURITY

The maritime space is now ready for disruption. A hundred years ago, a single ship was manned by 100 crew. Now, that’s just down to 15 or 30 at most. The trend continues as technology slowly replaces the jobs of seafarers.

Companies from startups to big businesses are developing autonomous ships that would run without a single crew on board. With today’s technology, these “crewless” vessel may soon roam the seven seas delivering cargoes to every port it calls to.

With the rise of artificial intelligence, augmented reality, virtual reality, smart data, 5G and the internet of things (IOT), these developments will serve as the building blocks for unmanned ships.

Human Error

Shipping accidents have plagued the oceans for many decades. Its not only costly but the effects like an oil spill lingers for decades. Human error is mostly at fault for they account 75% to 96% of marine accidents. Grounding, collision, fire, capsizing- you name them. Human element is involved.

Whenever a maritime incident occurs, the world turns its attention to shipping. This is because the magnitude is on a large scale and not only the environment is affected but human lives as well.

To minimize the human interface in a vessel, companies are racing to build autonomous ships. The “Captain” will be located somewhere on shore monitoring the vessel as it navigates. The ship itself will be packed with sensors aside from building it to be robust- able to withstand the toughest weather.

There are still debate as to the cost efficiency of unmanned ships since these will be very expensive to build including the technology required to run them. But since the human factor is taken out, crew expenses will also be removed. This includes seamen’s salary, their provision, insurance, living spaces, crew changes and many others. As the technology matures, autonomous tech may cost less as more robust and cheaper ones will be made available .

Automation

I asked my crew mates about unmanned vessels and they still believe that this will be possible after a hundred years. However, taking a second look about the equipment we have on board points to automation.

The Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) replaced the Radio Officer who was considered vital on board. He was very important that the ship is not allowed to sail without him. Then came the Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS) which replaced the paper charts. Many years ago, engineers would be on watch 24/7 inside the Engine Room. Now, we have Unmanned Machinery (UMS) Space where they can sleep all night in their cabins leaving the engine room without any person.

These developments- small as they may be, follows a trend of race to zero: reducing the number of people on board until only the machines are needed to keep them running. This may look like a long shot but with today’s technology, the future will be promising to those who are prepared.

What do you think of unmanned vessels?

Monitoring and running vessels will soon be made available using laptop or any mobile devices as the industry shifts to autonomous shipping.

Source: marinestartups

The Significance of Machine Learning in Shipping & Maritime

August 4, 2020 Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

Machine learning (ML) is a process by which large caches of data are analyzed in order to find connections between different elements that human analysts would be unlikely to discover. In the future, all shipping companies will have access to machine learning tools to enhance their productivity. Seamlessly integrating these operations will not happen quickly. But developments in the technology and its adaptability quotient would trigger the adoption of ML in a larger scale in maritime soon.

With machine learning the seamen can detect and diagnose engine faults sooner. This in turn optimises the voyage. Early detection of malfunction prevents further damage and increases the life of a marine engine. By preventing further damage of an engine, the fuel consumption is also optimised which in turn reduces pollution. This is a chain of advantages which can be achieved by implementing machine learning technology in shipping.

Machine learning has made its own niche in maritime and supply chain management. Through it, the sectors are looking to improve their operational efficiencies and at the same time, reduce risks. While in shipping it is being used for network planning, container demand forecasting and the un-/pairing of container flows, the logistics and supply chain management are utilizing it to draw patterns and insights that are proving crucial for the evolution of these sectors.

Machine Learning and Maritime

PSA Marine, a Singapore based marine service provider partnered with Ernst and Young Solutions and began the development of a technology based on machine learning and AI – ‘Blue 5.0.’. Through it, the company plans to predict pilotage transit durations along with planning and allocating terminal resources more efficiently. With technologies like ‘Blue5.0.’ being developed, the maritime sector is also investing in some quality research work to develop machine learning models that could heavily revolutionize the sector.

A new approach incorporating the use of machine learning algorithms in developing a shipping emission inventory model has been suggested in a research paper titled ‘An application of machine learning to Shipping Emission Inventory’. The paper written by Vikram Garaniya (University of Tasmania), Rouzbeh Abbassi (Macquarie University) and Shuhong Chai (Australian Maritime College), published in the December 2018 edition of  The International Journal of Maritime Engineering, extensively discussed and identified 5 machine learning models that can be utilized to predict shipping emissions based on engine parameters like engine load information.

It also suggested that a vast scope of further research and development lies ahead where better pollutant monitoring can be achieved through machine learning algorithms, hence increasing the relevance of estimated emissions.

In addition to the shipping emission inventory, machine learning is also finding its place for maritime surveillance using ASI data streams. Development of a multi-task deep learning architecture model has been proposed for trajectory reconstruction, anomaly detection, and vessel type identification. Although the research is still underway, according to some reports, the on-going work in the field of introducing deep-learning, a sub-field of machine learning, to the maritime sector can revolutionize the maritime surveillance to a great extent.

Apart from the above-mentioned domains, the shipping sector is looking to improve on the following fronts by using machine learning algorithms along with sister technologies like IoT and Artificial Intelligence.

Maintenance: By deploying machine learning algorithms, a better schedule for maintenance work can be developed and thereby improving the liner services in the long term, especially during the times when a ship may need to be out of operations temporarily for maintenance work.

Freight Rates: Machine learning can help in handling the deficits and offer more reliable container capacity utilization; hence more consistent freight rates would prevail.

Sailing schedules: By using machine learning, better and reliable sailing schedules can be achieved as more accurate calculations would be there to predict the delays or estimate the time of arrival of the cargo.

Logistics: Machine learning will have potential impact on the global logistics chain. Machine learning can predict accurately on arrival of container shipments. Using information from a variety of sources across the supply chain—including live demand and pricing data. A more accurate demand forecast can also help to scale up capacity of the existing fleet.

Supply Chain Management

The supply chain management is utilizing machine learning algorithms to locate new patterns in supply chain data almost on a daily basis and use those patterns to improve the supply networks’ success. Improved demand forecasting and production planning, better supplier delivery performance, minimized supplier risk, improved supplier chain and transportation management, physical inspection and maintenance tasks, lower inventory and operation costs, quicker response time, extended life of supply chain assets are the key evolutions happened within supply chain management by the introduction of machine learning algorithms.

Platforms like Nautilus Labs, We4Sea and ClearMetals are working in the direction where ML driven data science is being used to provide effective solutions for voyage optimization, supply chain visibility, and sustainability.

The Way Forward

Although at present, the full potential of machine learning is still to be realized and implemented, machine learning algorithms are capable of churning through different data points and derive key relationships between variables that can assist in improving operations and networking of sectors like shipping, logistics, supply chain management, thereby making it a technology to watch out in the future.

The key to Machine Learning lies around the integration, implementation, and manipulation of data infrastructures as well as machine learning approaches designed for chemical and materials datasets. Machine learning approaches and capability has already revolutionized world’s major industries and shipping industry is next in the queue to take a giant leap towards digitalization and accelerate its working to a great extent.

Machine Learning is an interesting technology that has multiple applications in the maritime sector. The need of the hour is to carry out additional researches to uncover its full potential and harness its benefits to optimize efficiency, safety, productivity and skills of seafarers across the globe.

(References: www.blog.flexis.com; www.researchgate.net; www.forbes.com; www.porttechnology.org; IDTechEx; www.arxiv.org; www.bigdata-madesimple.com)

China set to boost fuel exports to clear high inventory as floods hit demand

August 4, 2020 Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)

China is set to boost its gasoline and gasoil exports from August as state-run refiners actively seek to clear the country’s surging oil product stockpiles with heavy rains and floods significantly denting domestic consumer and industrial fuel demand.

Since June, 23 provinces and Chongqing municipality have been suffering from heavy rains and floods. During the period, the region along the Yangtze river recorded the highest accumulative rainfall since 1961 at 410.4 mm, according to China Meteorological Administration.

As a result, the regions’ transportation, construction and broader industrial activities came to a grinding halt, putting the brakes on the domestic fuel demand recovery since the peak of COVID-19 pandemic during February-April.

Despite the set back in domestic fuel demand, Chinese refineries have been maintaining high run rates in order to digest record-high crude imports, prompting oil product inventory to surge.

An official from a Sinopec refinery in Wuhan said its oil product storage tanks were all full despite the plant’s throughput cut to about 80% since July 14 from over 100% previously.

Wuhan is one of the major cities located in the middle-stream of Yangtze river that suffered from floods.

China’s crude throughput reached an all-time high of 14.14 million b/d in June, up 9% year on year, data from National Bureau of Statistics showed.

The country’s crude throughput is expected to remain high in July as there are still a large number of crude oil cargoes to be discharged. More than combined total of 80 million barrels of tankers are still waiting in Chinese waters for more than 15 days because of the ongoing port congestion, data intelligence firm Kpler showed on July 21.
SINOPEC TO LEAD EXPORTS

The surge in fuel inventories has put a lot of pressure on China’s major fuel exporters to actively seek overseas outlets to clear their excess supplies at home.

As almost all the state-owned refineries along the Yangtze river are managed by Sinopec, it is necessary for the refining giant to manage the domestic demand-supply balance and lead the exports, industry and trading sources said.

“We have proposed an increase in product exports next month to the head office in order to offset product inventory pressure,” said an official at a Sinopec refinery in Shanghai.

China is expected to export 1.3 million-1.5 million mt of gasoline in August, while gasoil exports could possibly hit 2 million mt, a Beijing-based analyst said.

In comparison, China exported only 676,000 mt of gasoline and 1.45 million mt of gasoil in May, latest data from General Administration of Customs showed. The country is estimated to have exported less than 1 million mt of gasoline in June, and July shipments are expected at no more than 1.1 million mt, according to fuel marketing sources at state-run Unipec and Chinaoil.
ASIAN MARKET BALANCE

Tight supply in the Asian light and middle distillate markets would bode well for China’s increased exports, refinery officials and trading desk managers based in Singapore, Beijing and Seoul said.

South Korean and Japanese refiners have been maintaining their crude throughput levels and run rates low, providing Chinese fuel suppliers an opportunity to further ramp up exports to clear their excess stockpiles.

South Korea is estimated to have exported less than 3.2 million barrels of gasoline in June, down from 3.65 million barrels in May, 5.6 million barrels in April and 8.03 million barrels in March, according to data from Korea National Oil Corp.

The Japanese gasoline exports totaled 111,786 barrels in the four weeks to July 5-11, down 87% from 840,319 barrels in the same period a year ago, according to S&P Global Platts calculations based on the Petroleum Association of Japan data.

Industry sources reiterated that the extended lack of spot cargo availability owing to curtailed output from regional refineries has contributed to much of the strength seen in Asian middle distillate market in recent weeks.

However, rising coronavirus infections have injected fresh uncertainty on regional fuel demand recovery and Chinese oil product sales in the Asian export market.

“For now, it’s [gasoil demand] is still supported …. but people are worried that there will be lockdowns again,” an industry source said.

Reflecting Asia’s fragile gasoline demand recovery outlook, Platts data showed that the front month August-September 92 RON gasoline timespread flipped into contango at minus 7 cents/b at the close of Asian trade July 17. This was the first time in three weeks that the Asian gasoline timespreads have been negative.

“Overall demand hasn’t been enough to absorb the new cargoes,” a second Singapore-based source said.
Source: Platts

Newer Posts

Older Posts

News

Quick Menu

Company DETAILS

SHIP IP LTD
VAT:BG 202572176
Rakovski STR.145
Sofia,
Bulgaria
Phone ( +359) 24929284
E-mail: sales(at)shipip.com

ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED