Arthur Bowring has often commented on broad yet important issues facing the shipping industry. Here he voices his concerns over the design of bulk carriers, which he feels are not always ‘fit for purpose’ when delivered.
It is less than two years after the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) introduced regulations to eradicate the problems of bulk carrier safety. Those rules, however, now appear rather ambiguous, and the problem is exacerbated as shipyards become creative in interpreting Class Rules. One example of this is the need to carefully optimise cargo placement during loading to fit the allowable strength, rather than design strength being based on expected loading conditions. This is the reason why some new bulk carriers, which appear to be fully classed, lack the ability to load certain cargoes.
Citing vicious circles of intense competition in which shipyards, classification societies and shipowners find themselves, Bowring believes the way forward is to impose a common minimum standard so that ships on delivery are fit for purpose and able to carry all common cargoes in unrestricted worldwide trade with a common design life.
Fitness for purpose
Says Bowring: We recently met representatives of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) to discuss our Technical Sub-Committee Bulk Carrier Initiative. During the meeting, we spent some time explaining our concept of a ship being fit for purpose. This is a philosophy rather than a technical specification, and therefore quite difficult to grasp. What it comes down to is whether the bulk carriers that have been built and are still being built are suitable for their intended trade.
In its meeting with IACS, the HKSOAs Technical Sub-Committee members highlighted some recent examples where they felt designs were deficient and how the design might have been different had the overall philosophy of being fit for purpose been the guiding light. Bowring explains: Our comments were related to the more frequent case of standard designs, such as bulk carriers, rather than one-off specialised ship designs. We have many examples, especially of the larger bulk carriers delivered nowadays, that are optimised to such an extent that their trading can be severely limited. But this is not generally clear when the ship is ordered, nor from the pre-delivery specification. Often it is discovered only after delivery when the crew tries to load certain cargoes in certain sequences.
However, Bowring agrees that if shipowners in the bulk trades are to have any real chance of remaining competitive, they have to buy cheap. This means taking shipyards standard designs, since any change in specification will boost the price tremendously. Take, for example, the trade of a Capesize or Panamax bulk carrier, which is fairly uncomplicated.
There are only a few commodities that are carried on these ships, and these vessels usually trade worldwide to any port that can take them. But the newbuilding yard will never supply more than the absolute minimum, since most faults will not show during the 12-month guarantee period and there is almost no collection of data by the industry that would identify shipyards that routinely build ships with faults.
Extended guarantees?
The HKSOA is now placing pressure on IACS to introduce a minimum unified standard. The goal is for these bulk carriers to be suitable for their intended cargoes or fit for purpose. Says Bowring: We are not alone in our concerns. Some owners are now calling for extended guarantees for newbuildings. Marc Saverys, MD of CMB, was recently reported in Fairplay to have asked why a shipyard only gave owners a one-year guarantee while the same company could offer a six-year warranty on cars that it built. John Lyras, president of the Union of Greek Shipowners, has also complained about modern construction quality. He recently called for minimum class standards to meet a 25-year, commercially viable life expectancy without major steel replacement.
Hans Viig, senior vice president of DNV and an early supporter of HKSOAs initiative, gave a paper at the recent Intercargo AGM in Rome to discuss whether bulk carriers are really fit for their mission. Says Viig, DNV has long held the view that many standard bulk carriers offered and delivered by major shipbuilders are not really fit for a lifetime mission as general-purpose vessels. Experience shows that design criteria are usually minimal or optimised so that ships can be sold for the lowest possible price. Some owners are happy with lower-cost vessels for a specific trade. However, we are concerned that the vessels will be sold to owners that will use them for a wide range of cargoes for which they are not suited. This, of course, could have serious implications for the ship and cargo owners, not to mention the risk to human life and the environment.
Concludes Bowring: It is clear that our initiative is one part of an industry reaction to the continuing declining standards of newbuilding, especially series-built, construction. The fact that IACS has recently reconvened its bulk carrier safety steering committee is encouraging and will help address the questions that have been raised.