EDITORIAL COMMENT


Bogged down by ballast


IMO HQ in London, UK: a major flag signing up to the international ballast water convention would hasten the ratification process (Courtesy of IMO).


I


s this a good time to be a ballast water treatment (BWT) system manufac- turer? On the face of it, for those


manufacturers who have completed their certification processes (or are nearing the end of this time-consuming ritual, typically taking 18 to 24 months) might be forgiven for anticipating an upsurge of orders as soon as a major flag signs up to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Interna- tional Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water. As classification society Bureau Veritas (BV) points out in this issue’s Water Treatment feature (pp 26-27), the BWT system market is a relatively young one, albeit one whose products remain, for the most part, untested over lengthy periods of vessel operation. The two clear favourites so far, and


certainly the units that class societies such as BV are willing to give most credence to, remain active substance and UV designs. Each has its pros and cons; active substance- based systems require constant investment in purifying chemical treatments, which must be removed from the ballast water before it is dumped, while UV-dependent systems can be bulky and constitute a drain on shipboard energy. However, these are far from being the


only options on offer – and it appears that the shipping and offshore sectors are aware of this. It’s fairly easy to attribute operator reluctance to install BWT systems at this early stage to complacency or the usual maritime tradition of budget-hoarding until


regulations are made concrete.


However, many operators share a genuine conviction that IMO and the relevant flag states have failed to communicate the ins and outs of the compliance process as well


as they could have done, and that there is a good chance that a brand new, inexpen- sive and easy-to-install BWT solution may appear on the market before the conven- tion is officially ratified. Te truth is that there are still contend-


ing products and concepts which may or may not buck the hegemony of chemical- / UV-based treatment solutions in the long term. For instance, one proposal has been that ships incorporate some sort of ultrasonic technology to destroy alien aquatic species within the ballast tanks, prior to discharge. Initial objections to this methodology have included concerns that such treatment could potentially deafen fish and other marine organisms outside of the vessel (presumably the crew would be fine, or did they get second billing?). In fact, next time you encounter a verbal tirade against the maritime sector’s supposed culture of environmental negligence, do remind your accusers that we now have to contend with procurement departments paying through the nose for tributyltin-free coatings (page 16), in order to safeguard dog whelks from sex changes; a whole new round of investment into BWT systems, to preserve mutations to regional ecosystems; and now a method of BWT potentially shelved because it might damage fishes’ hearing levels. For stone-hearted, cigar-chomping wreckers of the environment, the marine and offshore industries haven’t given sea life a rough ride all of the time. Another interesting BWT alternative has


been suggested by Norwegian manufac- turer Ulmatec, the idea being that the BWT system uses the waste heat from the vessel’s engine and exhaust systems to effectively ‘boil’ the ballast water, thus killing off


Offshore Marine Technology 1st Quarter 2012


any invasive species. As an idea, it seems profoundly attractive – ‘Achieve compli- ance with the convention at no ongoing cost!’ – and it will be interesting to see how it fares through the certification process. However, Ulmatec’s proposal brings us back to the main point – if vessel owners and operators are aware that this technol- ogy, or others like it, may be forthcoming in the not so distant future, why would they feel it necessary to invest in a UV-based BWT solution, right here and now, when nobody can say for sure that it would be the most cost-efficient option? Of course, there are those who debate the


need for ballast water tanks at all, and certain vessel types may benefit from minimum- / no-ballast ship concepts (currently under investigation by the Japan Ship Centre, among others) or even vessels incorporat- ing continual flow-through designs, with the ballast water leaving the vessel seconds aſter being loaded, avoiding the need for tanks and restricting aquatic organisms to their home environments. To date, nobody claims to have viewed


a full scale test vessel for the latter solution, but it is a possibility that could nonetheless see naval architects rivaling the BWT system manufacturers 10 to 20 years down the line. It is undoubtedly a good time to be in possession of certifica- tion, and to be in the position to create these systems. Sales may well pick up over the next year as ratification of the convention becomes inevitable. However, one cannot blame operators for hedging their bets and looking to the long term on this issue; it could well be that an as yet undiscovered, simpler and cheaper solution lurks on the horizon. OMT


5


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32