the IHS Ballast Water Guide - RWO Marine Water Technology

IHS Fairplay Solutions Guide to Ballast Water Treatment Systems Sponsored by
Introduction
When ships began using seawater as
ballast over a century ago it is unlikely
that anyone foresaw that the practice
would be blamed for spreading alien
species around the world’s oceans or that
ballast would have to undergo treatment
to prevent species migration.
But that is exactly what has happened.
While the shipping industry cannot be blamed
for every transfer of marine organisms, it
must recognise it has a duty to protect fragile
ecologies while continuing to benefi t from the
advantages that using water ballast can bestow
on vessel operations.
Ballast water allows vessels to operate
effi ciently when empty or part-loaded and
permits stability to be managed. It can be a
useful tool that enables underwater repairs
to be undertaken without drydocking and
in preventing pollution through altering a
damaged ship’s attitude in the water.
The IMO approved the International Ballast
Water Management (BWM) Convention
in 2004, which, when enough ratifying
signatures have been added, will aff ect almost
all vessels over 400gt. Inevitably, owners
will face extra costs in complying with the
convention, mostly without any obvious
benefi t in return. Nevertheless, careful
selection of an appropriate system, whether
as a retrofi t or a newbuilding installation, may
allow some of the costs to be off set.
More than 40 systems are at or close to
commercialisation using one or more methods
– mechanical, physical and chemical – to
treat the ballast water. Most will result in a
big reduction in sediment in ballast tanks,
benefi ting operators through an increase in
cargo-carrying ability. The legislation also
off ers an opportunity to replace ineffi cient
Malcolm
Latarche
Editor
Owners appear to be
delaying installation
while they weigh the
various options that
are emerging
pumping and piping systems, since many
existing pumps may not be up to the task.
That the convention remains unratifi ed is a
combination of some fl ag states objecting to
the testing and sampling procedures that will
be used to police the operation and others not
convinced that suffi cient systems are yet at a
stage ready for installation on board. Owners
appear to be delaying installation while they
weigh the various options that are emerging .
Manufacturers may off er incentives for early
orders to recoup some of their R&D costs and
some have guaranteed that systems still to be
approved will either be made to comply or they
will refund the cost should they not do so.
Operators should also consider carefully
whether shipyards will be able to accommodate
the rush to install equipment when the retrofi t
deadlines arrive. Not only are equipment prices
sure to rise but also any delay in fi nding yard
capacity could hit earnings hard.
4 © IHS Global Limited 2012
004_BW1204.indd 1 21/03/2012 18:18:59