Cleaning up Marine Antifouling Thu 29 th April 2010 IMarEST, London Introduction and Challenges Dr Raouf Kattan Managing Director Safinah Ltd –

Graving

Anti-fouling coatings One of the few areas where the benefits are most readily calculated in energy and monetary terms. For the owner fuel can account for up to 50-60% of the operating costs of the vessel (depending on price/ship type).

Bulk carrier example These account for about 64% of the worlds fleet (2009) by Gross tonnage. 80,000dwt as a typical size, consuming about 45t HFO per day to achieve 15kts. Total underwater area approximately 13,500sqm

Value of the AF Bunker price $230 per tonne Total annual fuel bill assuming 80% activity = $3million $222 m 2 /year 3 year dry docking means $666 m 2 /3 years Typically need 5,400 ltrs of an SPC type Anti fouling Value per litre $555. Best price at present?

Emissions In 1994 – world fleet was 39,000 vessels burning about 184 million t of FO, then at a cost of $100/t = $18.4billion p.a. If no SPC Anti Fouling then would burn 40% more fuel, increase of 72 million t. That year the North Sea produced 100 million t of crude oil

Current status NO ORGANOTIN Any more CONSTANT performance still required CURRENT SPC technology not yet as good as the TBT Emission concerns Cu is banned for small craft in parts of Scandinavia and US West coast ports under pressure.

Fleet performance HEADLINES in the PRESS –15 of the worlds biggest ships now have Sulphur emissions equivalent to the worlds 750 million cars –As vessel size and speed has increased so the environmental impact of some fleets has worsened.

The route to the present Free association Copper, Mercury, Arsenic Organotin Introduced Organotin Co-polymers Introduced Ablative coatings Introduced Copper Co-polymers Introduced New Technologies A clean smooth hull - Resistance to slime - Resistance to roughness - Resistance to fouling - Long lasting

Technology needs Anti-slime – 15% penalty Anti-fouling – 40% penalty (75% reached when only 5% of hull is hard fouled). Predictable performance What about the propeller?

Technology needs Shipyard needs No change to application technology Minimum impact on shipyard work practices Use existing application technology and methods No additional HS&E burden Over coating intervals of up to 9 months between coats Minimum number of coats No VOC penalty Ability to withstand U/V exposure before immersion (up to 12 months) Easy to touch up/repair No additional surface preparation requirements. -15 degrees C to plus 40 degrees C 80% humidity Storage stability up to 18 months Low price (Shipyard) Ship owner needs Easy to repair Abrasion resistant/Impact resistant Should control fouling for up to 60 months, more if possible Minimise hull roughness Able to deal with periods of atmospheric exposure, Available in a variety of colours Low price No environmental or H&S penalty Easy to repair Compatible with existing application technology Suitable for bulk supply (up to 500ltr totes) Should be able to deal with static periods of up to 4 weeks Should be able to deal with variable speed

Price factors Raw material costs - Available factory capacity - Access to technology – competition - Ship prices – Fuel costs - Exchange rate movements – ship type – ship owner 36 Months SPC 36 Months SPC Price Performance Controlled Depletion Contact Leaching 60 Months SPC 60 Months SPC Foul Release Foul Release Hard Coatings Heavy metal free Price movement Hybrid schemes to reduce costs

Price pressure

Foul release technology First 30 years –107 applications –2004/2005 – 154 applications 2005 first new building Now 1 in 10 new builds currently specifying it. Set backs –Issues with Slime on 1 st generation products –Some reports of non-foul release –Practical application problems

Hard coatings SHC – Standard Hard Coatings STC – Surface Treatment Coatings Issues of underwater hull cleaning and invasive species issues:

Demand - size

Demand - Speed

Market demand – NB and M&R Year Paint Ltrs (million t)

Supply 90-95% of all vessels still coated with conventional AF Heavy metal free products now available from one major supplier FR coatings becoming better and more established but not the panacea all wished for Hard coatings found a niche

Suppliers The major paint companies Barriers to entry not technology but distribution

Customers The need is there The HS&E pressure is there The desire is there Hull performance monitoring Fleet performance managers.

The challenge New/alternative technologies emerging Nothing yet to really dislodge the current dominant solutions Broad efficacy Need for innovation is there The market is very receptive to new ideas. Risk factor for new entrants. Responsible Environmental regulation Price not a barrier – if the paint works