Latin American Panel

Miami, 24 July 2003

“ POST PRESTIGE ”

Peter M. Swift

Prestige Accident

An INTERTANKO member company

Member in good standing for more than 14 years Ship with only 2 owners – last since 1988 Only one classification society – ABS Flag change to Bahamas from Panama Recent surveys fully satisfactory:

2001: Special survey

2002: Annual survey

PSC (Russia)

Oil major (SIRE database)

Prestige Accident

European Actions:

New measures to restrict single hulls in Europe Heavy fuel oil to be carried in double hulls Spanish decree (Italy follows) “Malaga Treaty” – 200 mile exclusion zone for

single hulls carrying heavy oils UNCLOS challenged Moves to declare Western European PSSA

Increase penal sanctions / criminalisation

Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction

It is imperative that ALL events surrounding the accident are investigated impartially

Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction

Places of Refuge must be addressed promptly

Safe HavensSafe Havens

A Solution Waiting to be ImplementedA Solution Waiting to be Implemented

“ It is now quite clear that, if decisive action had been taken at an early stage to move the ship to a more sheltered location, the ship and its cargo would almost certainly have been saved and any pollution would have been minimal. ”

Bahamas Maritime Authority – release

Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction

The continued detention of master is not acceptable

Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction

The IMO is the proper forum for any new measures

International law must be upheld and strict adherence is essential

EU Proposals

1. Revision to EU Regulation EC 417/2002 2. Amendments to MARPOL Annex I

• Accelerated Phase-out of single hulls

• Expanded Condition Assessment Scheme

• Ban on Heavy Oil in single-hulled tankers

Single-hull tanker phase-out comparision IMO 13G – EU proposal

EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I

• IMO is the appropriate forum for this debate

• All such proposals must be subject to rigorous analysis and impact assessment

• Note decisions of only two years ago

• Concern that there are no compelling reasons for change

• Need stability and predictability to improve safety and environmental protection

Oil tanker fleet above 5,000 dwt as of June 2003

%

31

5443

59 6654

10

14

12

128

2

59

3245

29 2644

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5,000-30,000

30,000-60,000

60,000-80,000

80,000-120,000

120,000-200,000

200,000+

Single hull

DB/DS

Double hull

Tanker fleet: double hull development

622

51

75 81

9478

49

25 19

0

20

40

60

80

100

1991 1997 End 02 End 07 End 10

SH share (%)

DH share (%)

EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I

Accelerated Phase-out

• Withdrawal “Peaks” in 2003/2005 and 2010

• Many young tankers withdrawn prematurely

Will:• Destabilise freight, shipbuilding and ship recycling

markets• Unsettle business planning environment• Destroy USD 4 bn. asset values

Tanker fleet : 5,000 dwt and above mid 2003 by year of build and hull-type

Number

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1984

1986

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Double Hull

Double side & double bottom

Single Hull

Single-hull tanker phase-out 5,000 dwt and aboveNumber

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MARPOL 13G

OPA 90

EU proposal

EU prop. adjust*

*2005 would be earliest IMO implementation date

Tanker age profile-deliveries-phase-outMil dwt

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-1970 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013

Deliveries

DB/DSs

DH

SH

Phase-out

Tanker age profile-deliveries-phase-out

Number

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

-1970 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700DH

DB/DSs

SH

Deliveries

Phase-out

EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I

Expanded Condition Assessment Scheme

• Inconsistent logic – CAS from 15 years of age, but tankers withdrawn irrespective of this provision

• CAS will require revisions if it is to be applied as proposed

• It will not be possible for all 15 y.o. Category 2 and 3 tankers to undertake CAS before April 2005

EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex IBan on Heavy Oil in single-hulled tankers

Principal concerns:

• Definition of heavy crude oils

• Impact on certain oil trades

• Short term availability of double hull tonnage in certain shipping sectors, e.g. Panamax and possibly Aframax

EU Proposals to Amend MARPOL Annex I

And finally

Disappointment that there is NO reference to the NEED for PLACES of REFUGE

Phase-out schedules - million dwt

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Max 25 years

Max 20 years

Max 23 years

EU proposal

Phase-out schedules - number

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Max 25 years

Max 20 years

Max 23 years

EU proposal

www.intertanko.com

Prestige : INTERTANKO’s reaction

It is imperative that ALL events surrounding the accident are investigated impartially

Places of Refuge must be addressed promptly

The continued detention of master is not acceptable

The IMO is the proper forum for any new measures

International law must be upheld and strict adherence is essential