There has been an ‘E’ in ‘SHEQ’ for decades now, so there can be few companies that do not give at least some thought to the impact of their operations on the environment. The next few years will, though, see a strengthening of the requirements to consider the environmental impact of industrial operations – including transport operations.
These changes are the fallout from the Paris Agreement, signed in December 2015, which set targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and also encouraged countries around the world to examine how they will prepare for climate change.
In the maritime world, shipowners are facing a major change next year, with the introduction by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) of new restrictions on the sulphur content of marine fuel – or, at least, the restriction of sulphur oxide content in exhaust streams, which can equally be achieved by means of exhaust gas scrubbers or the use of other fuels such as LNG or LPG.
To a large extent, environmental controls imposed on industry and the transport sector thus far have often proved to include a financial pay-off for those involved. After all, if the aim of a rule is to make operations more energy-efficient, then it means that the same amount of work can be done at a lower cost.
The IMO 2020 rule, as it is widely known, is different. Shipowners will, one way or another, have to pay but will not get any return. The cost of installing scrubbers or buying higher-priced low-sulphur fuel will not make their ships any more energy-efficient or faster, so the same work will be done at a higher cost.
And IMO 2020 is just the first step. IMO has agreed to address GHG emissions, taking a phased approach. GHG emissions will have to be
reduced sharply from 2030 onwards (now ‘IMO 2030’) and eliminated altogether by 2050 (‘IMO 2050’). Those targets are not going to be met by using hydrocarbon fuels, as they target carbon dioxide in particular, and IMO 2030 will probably mean restrictions on steaming speeds. By 2050, though, shipowners will have to be looking at innovative fuels such as hydrogen (probably in the form of fuel cells) or ammonia –two potential fuels that contain no carbon in their atoms.
There are two implications for this. Firstly, the IMO 2020 provisions are merely a stopgap. The costly alterations that shipowners (and refiners and bunker suppliers) are having to put in will be only temporary. Secondly, given that ships are built to last for 20 years at least, shipowners placing newbuilding orders today will have to have one eye on how they are going to operate those ships in a post-2030 environment. Within the next decade they will have to start looking at how they will meet the 2050 restrictions – potentially relying on technology that has not yet been developed, at least to an operational level.
Speaking recently at the Chemical & Parcel Tanker Conference in London, IMO secretary-general Kitack Lim stressed the importance of these changes. IMO has been firm with the 2020 deadline and owners have to expect the 2030 and 2050 deadlines to be similarly unmovable.
We are moving into a different world in terms of environmental protection and, in this world, there is no sign that those affected will be able to benefit from cost savings.
Peter Mackay
Letter from the
Years Ago
by Training
The clean team
in GCC tank depots
Crisis concerns Agility’s Emerging Markets Index
Warming up to cocoa Haesaerts moves into West Africa
Looking back, moving forward A big year for Brenntag
conversations
back from CTS Europe
bulletin – chemical distribution
Fuelling the future Previewing FPS EXPO
power
makes buying easy
On the right track
Successful year for VTG
the valley
Essers develops rail hub
Sustainable is attainable Antwerp’s radical methanol plan
News bulletin – tanks and logistics
Hard to port
Chemship owners face difficult choices
sailing Odfjell eyes upturn
The big issue Stena happy with IMO II activities
the fairway Tanker fleets gets a better balance
Listing of chemical tanker fleets
News bulletin – tanker shipping
Training courses
diary
Peter
Email:
Sam
Incident Log
Let’s be honest
TT Club calls for Cargo Integrity
Sticky stuff
ITCO guidance on polymerisers
REGULATIONS
Last chance saloon
makes final touches to changes
BACK PAGE
Not otherwise specified
Storage terminal expansion projects
Latest moves in digitisation
Chemical distribution in Europe
back from LogiChem, StocExpo
Stephen
Designer
HCB
Cargo
Thirty years ago, the world of the dangerous goods shipper and packer was dominated by one issue: the impending arrival of new UN specifications for dangerous goods packagings. At the time, we pointed out that the UN packaging performance tests were designed to sure the global implementation of uniform transport standards. However, while many companies, especially larger shippers, had seen that the early transition to UN standards made good business sense and were already applying them, there was a group of laggards that had not yet started the process, even though mandatory implementation of the new provisions was little more than a year away – arriving in ADR and RID on 1 May 1990.
It seems like common sense now but at the time it was quite a revolution for many in the business. The system places the onus on the shipper to decide what they want from the packaging they use to contain their products and then to determine how those requirements can be fitted into the UN packaging requirements, depending on the hazard characteristics of the goods being shipped.
In fact, back in 1989 a survey undertaken by HCB found that, while most packaging manufacturers had conducted the necessary tests and could therefore label their packagings correctly, shippers were far less prepared. Some of those surveyed felt that, as the existing dangerous goods packaging requirements were only lightly enforced, it was hard to take the UN deadline seriously. It also came as something of a shock to those in the UK that had only been operating in the domestic market: the UK’s impending adoption of ADR for
domestic road transport would mean that they would have to come up to scratch with UN packaging.
Meanwhile, over in Geneva, the UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods had just held its 15th biennial meeting. At that time, most of the work was done by the UN Group of Rapporteurs and the UN Group of Experts on Explosives, with their recommendations generally adopted by the Committee. At their 1988 session, however, the experts deferred some topics – in particular the work on the reclassification of gases – and made significant changes in other areas.
The December 1988 session of the UN Committee was notable in a number of other ways. It would be the last to be chaired by Al Roberts, who had decided it was time for someone else to take the helm, and it was also the last to take input from the two Groups. As from 1989, the preparatory work was to be done – as it still is today – by the UN Subcommittee of Experts on TDG.
There were complaints at the meeting that the Spanish language version of the UN Recommendations had failed to appear in the previous two biennia, possibly due to a shortage of funds for the translation work. It was suggested that the Recommendations should be updated every four years rather than every two, which would lighten the burden of work, and also that the UN should take a leaf out of IMO’s book and take a more commercial approach. Neither proposal was taken up at the time, which is probably a good thing in terms of global safety in the transport of dangerous goods.
Perhaps you drove to work this morning behind the wheel of your car. With that wheel you can steer your car from left to right in order to avoid bumping into things – other cars, people in the street – and stay on the road. Perhaps last weekend you were on your boat and sailed to an island where you and your family went ashore to make a camp fire and have a barbeque.
You may think that driving to work or sailing to that island is easy, but that is not the case. To reach such destinations, you will need not only skills, a driver’s licence and a boat licence, but also information. That information can be gathered by looking at the weather, directions on a map, how much fuel you will need, other traffic, depth of water, draft of your boat or speed of your car. Many pieces of information are necessary to arrive in one piece.
Recently I met with HCB’s editor-in-chief, Peter Mackay, in London and he asked me how to steer an organisation by using feedback – aka information. I was at that time not aware he had made a short video about feedback, mentioning that corporations that do not use feedback are not able to sustain themselves. This is a fact. All feedback is needed to ‘steer’ a corporation too, just like a car or boat.
So what happens if information that does not suit a goal or purpose is ignored? You guessed right: the goal can’t be reached unless it depends on externalities, i.e. costs or damage to others, the environment or social expenditure, which then causes vulnerability of the corporation. Feedback is an absolute condition to reach a goal and maintain stability not only when driving your car or navigating your boat, but in all organisations.
You can easily observe when information is being evaded in politics, polluting corporations or, for example, in the case of Brexit. Those who support Brexit ignore information that contradicts their goals, but the opposing group does exactly the same and only sees the advantages.
Controlling and governing any man-made system, be it a car or a corporation, can only be done with real-time information and immediate adjustment (steering). This would mean that regulations or compliance are always too late and are only valuable as references, but not as tools to sustain companies.
Organisations can maintain themselves only by constant adaptation through feedback. This would mean that ethics (reality) as a requisite variety and regulator must be implemented to accept even that information which one may not like. You can compare it with how our bodies function; through cognition (interaction with the environment) they constantly learn and adapt and you will know when important feedback about our wellbeing is denied, because our minds (neurons) will send you a warning message.
Ignoring feedback is the cause of all global risks and the inevitable decline of corporations and governments, because they can’t be ‘steered’ any longer.
This is the latest in a series of articles by Arend van Campen, founder of TankTerminalTraining. More information on the company’s activities can be found at www.tankterminaltraining.com. Those interested in responding personally can contact him directly at arendvc@tankterminaltraining.com.
THE RAPID EXPANSION of petrochemical production in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states – and, in particular, Saudi Arabia –in recent years has led to rapid development of logistics chains, a significant section of which rely on tank containers for the movement of product in and out of the region. In response to that, there has been a similar urgent need to install, upgrade and expand tank cleaning and maintenance facilities in the region, a need that depot operators are now rushing to meet. For instance, since the start of the year, Kanoo Tank Services (Sahreej) has opened two new state-of-the-art facilities in Saudi Arabia, both replacing existing depots. Sahreej, a joint venture between YBA Kanoo
and Stolt Tank Containers (STC), put its new depot in Dammam into operation in February and in March held a formal ceremony to mark the new facility in Jubail. This greenfield site is located in the Royal Commission Logistics Area of Jubail 2, adjacent to the main rail line, and has all necessary permits to operate legally and to handle wastes.
The Jubail tank cleaning, inspection and repair depot is one of the largest in STC’s global network of owned and joint-venture facilities, with a footprint of some 100,000 m². It has 24 cleaning slots, with a base cleaning capacity of 1,000 tanks per month, 36 inspection slots, 12 dedicated hydro and pneumatic testing bays, and steam heating for up to eight tanks at a time.
The fully covered repair bays offer full shell and frame repairs, using fully qualified welders, and are equipped with six tank rotators. In addition, there are 24 plug-in
points for reefer tanks; storage for up to 500 loaded tank containers, with emergency containment tanks; space for a further 1,000 tanks to be stored; and a wastewater treatment plant and scrubber designed to European/US standards.
THE BEST THERE IS Mike Tunstall, general manager of Sahreej, explains that the new Jubail site has been built to international standards, similar to those employed at other major depots around the world, and was designed by world-class engineers to bring the latest technology to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The standards were set by the partners, leveraging global expertise in the sector, and were designed to exceed rather than just to meet customer expectations. Sahreej is now in the process of getting the new sites assessed according to the Gulf SQAS scheme.
It is also notable that the Jubail depot is open to all operators, leasing companies and chemical producers, as it offers some services that are unique in Saudi Arabia. It is equipped to clean tanks that have carried diisocyanates (MDI and TDI) and latex and its repair and welding services are second to none. As far as Saudi Arabia goes, Tunstall says, “Nobody can come close to what we’re doing.”
The Sahreej site in Jubail is opposite the massive Sadara petrochemical plant, a joint venture between Saudi Aramco and Dow, which has been coming progressively onstream over the past two years and is now generating further investment in downstream chemical production. This new capacity is responsible for generating much of the new chemical traffic through Jubail and, Tunstall says, Sahreej is now for the first time seeing more work at Jubail than at its Dammam depot.
In contrast, Dammam serves a more mature market, which has thus far always been the main access into the Saudi chemical business. The Sahreej site in Dammam has always experienced a high level of demand, which is holding steady. Nevertheless, Sahreej took the decision to upgrade and expand operations at the facility.
Since February, the Dammam depot can clean 450 tank containers per month and is equipped with a covered repair facility, »
including two rotators – the first in operation in Saudi Arabia. It has covered inspection bays for leak testing, and for statutory pneumatic and hydro testing, along with storage for 832 empty tanks, steam heating facilities, and a European/US-standard wastewater treatment plant, which will deliver significant cost savings.
Now that the Dammam depot has been completely redeveloped and the greenfield depot in Jubail has been opened, the old Jubail depot will be dismantled and moved to Jeddah, where it will replace an existing but smaller facility.
Elsewhere in the GCC region, Joint Tank Services (JTS) is currently putting the finishing touches to a greenfield depot development in
Sohar, Oman, scheduled to be in operation by the end of the second quarter. This will be the first project outside Dubai for JTS, another joint venture involving YBA Kanoo and STC together with Alsace Holdings Ltd. As with the Jubail development, the new 20,000-m² facility in the Sohar Port Free Zone is designed to meet the needs of the growing petrochemical industry in Oman and Qatar.
The Sohar depot will be dedicated to cleaning, storage, repair and support services for tank containers. However, JTS says it plans not only to consolidate existing services on one site but also to expand its portfolio to develop other business offerings for the chemical industry, including drumming, warehousing and distribution.
JTS has already gone through a similar process at its Jebel Ali depot in Dubai. It has established a new division, JTS Chemical Logistics, that will offer storage of loaded tank containers (goods of Classes 3, 4.1, 6.1, 8 and 9, as well as non-hazardous chemicals); drumming of liquid chemicals from tank containers and road tankers into drums and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs), along
with interim storage; transport and local distribution of full tank containers, IBCs and drums; and cross-stuffing of chemicals from tank to tank or road tanker to tank.
JTS Chemical Logistics, due to open by July 2019, is located at a new site, close to the existing depot, which has 12 cleaning bays and also undertakes cleaning of road tankers and IBCs. As with the new Sahreej sites, the JTS cleaning station in Jebel Ali is equipped to deal with difficult cargoes, including latex, and it is also certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 and is SQAS-assessed.
Both Sahreej and JTS have a client list that includes most of the major international tank container operators; JTS also serves tank lessors, although Tunstall says there is less demand from this segment of the market in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, he adds, the volume of work for Sahreej is already “huge” and, with continuing investment in the petrochemical sector, is only likely to get larger over time. HCB www.sahreej.com www.jts.ae
(or otherwise) to logistics providers, freight forwarders, shipping lines, air cargo carriers and distributors.
One of the biggest national actions to consider is China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), estimated to be costing between $4bn and $8bn.
The BRI infrastructure drive is considered by those surveyed as providing a larger windfall to China than the countries in Asia, Middle East, Africa and Europe where it is actively investing. When asked about who the initiative will help in the long-term, 64 per cent of those surveyed see the BRI boosting China, whereas only 41 per cent believed it would help other emerging markets.
The UAE and Malaysia come top for business fundamentals. Gulf countries such as Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia also score highly in the eyes of industry leaders, generating plenty of business opportunities.
CHINA AND INDIA lead the way among developing markets in terms of domestic and international logistics strengths but fall behind others when it comes to business fundamentals, where countries such as the UAE, Malaysia and Qatar prevail.
Those are among the headline takeaways from this year’s Emerging Markets Logistics Index, the tenth annual survey undertaken by Agility to provide an insight into current opinion. The survey of more than 500 supply chain professionals aims to capture a glimpse into the leading sentiments of executives and rank the world’s leading 50 emerging markets by factors that make them attractive
The three main criteria are domestic and international logistics market strengths, and the provision of business fundamentals in each country. These three criteria are used to derive an overall score. The business fundamentals category ranks countries based on regulatory environment, credit and debt dynamics, contract enforcement, anti-corruption safeguards, price stability and market access.
Despite falling behind smaller markets in terms of business fundamentals, China and India were overall placed first and second, respectively, among emerging markets.
Nearly half of all those surveyed see India’s e-commerce growth being ‘as fast’ or ‘faster’ than that in China, something that has led to it being considered the market with the most potential. However, it is very important to remember that each of these countries has a myriad of contributing factors and political ambitions that influence the results.
Latin America offered a more subdued perspective. Brazil is still reeling from a severe economic downturn and the political upheaval and discontent in 2018 has caused the nation to tumble from ninth place last year to 15th this year. Other regional economies such as Mexico (seventh) and Chile (13th) were regarded more confidently by industry experts in terms of their future outlooks. Brazil has also been hit hard in the business fundamentals category - ironically a priority for the new president – where it came in 39th out of the 50 countries included in the survey.
It is not surprising that Venezuela comes out bottom of the pile, ranking last for both business fundamentals and international logistics opportunities. This is a clear reflection of the drastic and damaging effect regional and international politics and sanctions are continuing to have on the country.
It’s not all doom and gloom in Latin America. When asked for their opinions on Mexico and the ongoing frictions with the US, 65 per cent of respondents said they see Mexico increasing in trade under a yet-to-be-ratified replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Furthermore, despite its economic »
and political problems, industry ranks Brazil fourth among those emerging markets with the most potential, behind only India, China and Vietnam.
The worlds of business and politics frequently overlap, influencing each other in a variety of ways. Of the logistics executives surveyed by Agility, 47 per cent said an emerging market crisis is either ‘likely’ or ‘highly likely’. Furthermore, respondents believe that the current frictions between the US and China could potentially result in the loss of 10 per cent of global trade volumes. But the potential benefit of this, from certain points of view, is that 56 per cent of the industry leaders feel a prolonged trade war or standoff between the US and China would benefit other south-east Asian countries that can offer alternatives to China.
Looking into Europe, the turmoil that is Brexit could benefit emerging markets. Emerging markets are expected by 59 per cent of executives to seek trade concessions and new deals from the UK. However, 70 per cent feel that emerging markets will likely be unaffected by Brexit.
Furthermore, the near-term potential of Iran has all but vanished since the reintroduction of US-imposed sanctions. Nearly 75 per cent of those surveyed say Iran is ‘less promising than before’ or ‘not at all promising.’ Iran ranks 49th of 50 countries as an international logistics opportunity.
Among the 50 Index countries involved, it is not surprisingly considered hardest to do business in Venezuela, Angola, Myanmar and Libya. It could be the case that these nations are able to move up the rankings table in the coming years, but the large political frictions holding them back seem unlikely to be solved in the near term.
Sub-Saharan Africa is offering a mixed bag of results. South Africa, an economy usually considered a prime engine of emerging market growth, has faltered and slipped to 24th place overall. In contrast, Ghana and Kenya have both performed well in terms of business fundamentals, coming in at 19th
and 21st, respectively. This is almost the polar opposite of Nigeria, the second largest economy in Africa, where its poor business conditions lead to it ranking 44th.
One of the main catalysts for trade in sub-Saharan Africa is mobile banking. Nearly 43 per cent of the regional population now have access to fast, secure payments and transactions, which has significantly boosted prospects for small and mediumsized businesses (SMEs). It has been clearly shown that trade bureaucracy is the biggest obstacle to SMEs trying to do business across borders. Indeed, when Agility asked what types of company are likely to grow fastest in emerging markets, SMEs were the industry respondents’ top pick over multi-nationals and big regional or local companies.
“Companies looking for opportunity are finding it in emerging markets, where small and medium-sized enterprises with access to technology and mobile banking are increasingly driving growth,” says Essa Al-Saleh, CEO of Agility Global Integrated
Logistics. “At the same time, logistics professionals worry that these markets are vulnerable to ripple effects from big geopolitical setbacks.
“Concerns about emerging markets in 2019 are valid, especially in countries with significant dollar-denominated debt, but as a group these markets are growing at roughly twice the rate of developed economies,” AlSaleh adds. “What’s most heartening is that many now appear resilient enough to avoid the sort of contagion we saw spreading among emerging markets in 2013 and 2008.”
Emerging markets expanded 4.7 per cent in 2018 and 55.7 per cent of industry professionals believe that the estimated growth of 5 per cent is ‘about right’ for developing economies. The International Monetary Fund now forecasts 4.5 per cent expansion for 2019.
The 2019 Agility Emerging Markets Logistics Index can be downloaded from the Agility website at www.agility.com/en/emergingmarkets-logistics-index-2019/. HCB
BELGIUM-BASED HAESAERTS Intermodal has established a subsidiary in San Pedro, Ivory Coast. The new company, Haesaerts Intermodal Africa, will allow control of the entire cocoa butter logistics chain from producing regions in West Africa to the final destination in Europe.
Although Haesaerts Intermodal specialises in specific logistics solutions for chemical liquids and gases in challenging and demanding regions such as eastern Europe
and central Asia, the company has also been active in the transport of cocoa butter for many years. This is in line with the strategy of CEO Luc Haesaerts to focus on complex and vulnerable products that require special attention and care as well as advanced technological solutions. With a cost of around €6,000/tonne, cocoa butter is very expensive, making control of the entire logistics chain of paramount importance.
Haesaerts Intermodal currently transports 100 tank containers of cocoa butter per year from growing areas in Ivory Coast, Ghana and Cameroon to the chocolate factories in Europe. “This traffic is only increasing,” says Luc Haesaerts. “That is why we founded
Haesaerts Intermodal Africa. The aim is to increase this traffic to 300 tank containers per year.
“We are the first European tank container operator in the region with its own local company,” Luc Haesaerts adds. “Instead of working with agents, we now have our own employees on location. This enables us to organise door-to-door transport ourselves, to better control quality throughout the chain and to intervene much more quickly in the event of an incident.”
The office in San Pedro is located on a new logistics platform within the autonomous port. This was created as part of the partnership between the ports of San Pedro and Antwerp. This platform is expected to become a regional logistics hotspot, not only for cocoa, but also for fertilisers and cashew nuts.
“In the zone dedicated to cocoa butter logistics, Haesaerts Intermodal Africa will create ultramodern storage and transit facilities, including a state-of-the-art tank cleaning installation,” Luc Haesaerts adds.
“We transport cocoa butter in tank containers, which distinguishes us from other operators who opt for flexitanks loaded in conventional containers. Our solution requires more technology, making transport apparently more expensive. But if we calculate the total cost of operations (TCO), it is much cheaper,” explains Luc Haesaerts.
“After all, we have to take product losses in the chain and other hidden costs into account,” he stresses. “In a tank container, the only residue after transport is a film on the inner wall, with a total weight of only 20 kg. After emptying a flexitank, 400 to 700 kg of product remains in it. This residue is therefore an enormous cost factor.”
In addition, there are ‘hidden’ costs: the energy costs of heating the flexitank at its destination are much higher than those for a tank container and, above all, the flexitank must be destroyed after use by a specialised company. “This cost of destruction is continually increasing because of the environmental impact of plastics,” concludes Luc Haesaerts. HCB www.haesaerts.be
BRENNTAG HAS POSTED firm results for 2018, with global sales up 10.2 per cent on 2017 at €12.55bn and EBITDA ahead by 8.4 per cent at €875.5m, both figures adjusted for currency changes and both marking record highs for the group. Steve Holland, Brenntag’s CEO (below), says: “2018 was a year of good growth for Brenntag. We grew in all regions and lifted operating EBITDA to an all-time high.”
All regional divisions posted improved results but, Holland says, “Our large region North America, which delivered a very good, broad-based performance, is particularly
worthy of note.” Sales increased by 11 per cent to €4.64bn, with operating EBITDA ahead by 11.2 per cent at €409.6m. The high growth achieved across virtually all customer industries was almost entirely organic, Brenntag says.
The strong showing in North America is set to be a recurring theme for 2019 as Brenntag has struck some new deals and expanded its portfolio in the region. In March this year Brenntag North America signed an agreement with Hexion that will see it distribute Hexion’s range of epoxy speciality
and base epoxy resins and intermediates across the US and Canada. Hexion is a global leader in thermoset resins, serving a wide range of industries and providing a comprehensive selection of high-performing epoxy products, complementing Brenntag’s role as a leading distributor of epoxy merchandise. This arrangement provides both operators with new access to specialist teams, a wider assortment of products, and all-important distribution efficiency.
Markus Klähn, CEO of Brenntag North America, says: “We are enthusiastic to expand our global strategic relationship with Hexion in North America as part of our specialties growth strategy. Hexion’s high-performance epoxy products and technologies will allow us to solidify our position as partner of choice in the coatings, adhesives and construction segment and enable us to offer our customers innovative solutions through a dedicated team of technical experts.”
“We’re excited to connect the unique synergies of Brenntag with our product line on a larger scale,” adds Adam Houseman, distribution manager for Hexion Americas. “By expanding our relationship across North America, our customers will see enhanced value in technical assistance and convenience of supply.”
Filling a gap in its coverage, Brenntag has acquired New England Resins & Pigments (NERP), a regional distributor of specialty chemicals and packaging solutions with commercial operations. Acquisition of NERP, headquartered in Woburn, Massachusetts, “supports our ongoing growth in specialties and complements our presence in New England as a strong and reliable distribution partner of the industry,” says Klähn.
Anthony Gerace, Brenntag Group’s managing director, mergers & acquisitions, says: “NERP allows us to expand our regional specialty chemical portfolio and bolsters Brenntag’s existing Material Science business and technical sales presence in New England and the border states. It also strengthens our distribution footprint and facilitates new and stronger relationships with our specialty chemical partners.”
“NERP is thrilled to be joining Brenntag Specialties. The additional resources and expanded product offerings will allow NERP to bring greater value to our customers and will provide exceptional growth opportunities to our employees and principals. Our ability to provide a superior technical and customer service experience will be greatly enhanced.”
Outside of North America, Brenntag managed to resist economic and political headwinds and maintain its growth pattern. In the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region, for instance, operating EBITDA rose by 7.2 per cent to €385.5m on sales up 7.9 per cent at €5.34bn, supported in part by internal initiatives. There was good organic growth in the first half of the year, although conditions became more difficult as the year progressed due to an economic slowdown and tougher conditions in the region.
Brenntag’s business in Latin America continued to be impacted by the “generally challenging and volatile economic environment” in the region, although the company notes that the situation stabilised somewhat later in the year. Overall, operating EBITDA rose by 2.3 per cent to €39.9m on sales ahead by 6.1 per cent at €807.8m.
The Asia Pacific region once more posted strong growth, with operating EBITDA up 9.4 per cent at €77.9m on sales up 22.7 per cent at €1.38bn. Brenntag sees this as the region that offers the greatest growth potential and is continuing to optimise its network and expand its range of products and services, as evidenced by the joint venture it established with Raj Petro Specialities in July 2018.
Looking ahead to this year, Holland says: “Current developments and forecasts show that more challenging economic conditions can be expected at both global and regional level in 2019. In this environment, we will demonstrate our resilience and continue to grow, albeit at a slightly slower pace. In doing so, we will benefit from our broad footprint. We also expect impetus from our new approach for customers in the food and nutrition industry, where we repositioned ourselves in the reporting period so as to leverage the potential in this attractive segment.”
This will likely be the last set of annual results that Holland presents. After nearly a decade at the helm, and overseeing record years, he will be ending his time as CEO of Brenntag in February 2020 when his current contract expires. Under Holland, Brenntag has increased sales by more than 60 per cent.
Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Stefan Zuschke, says of the last nine years: “Steven has made a significant contribution in Brenntag’s journey from private to public ownership and its expansion into a truly global chemical distribution company and market leader. He has been a driving force within the Group since he joined the management board in 2007 and the Supervisory Board would like to express its appreciation for his vision, passion and leadership.”
A suitable replacement will be announced by the Supervisory Board in due course after a structured selection process. Undeniably, Holland will be leaving a formidable legacy for his successor.
“It has been my honour and privilege to lead the company and enjoy the challenges and successes of an amazing group of committed colleagues throughout the world,” Holland says. “I remain passionate about the future success and opportunities that lie ahead for Brenntag as we approach transformational changes in digital supply chain, value added services and growth of our speciality chemicals, ingredients and technical expertise. 2020 is the start of a new decade and I believe it’s the right time for new leadership to take Brenntag forward into new areas of growth and success.” HCB www.brenntag.com
and a key pharmaceutical hotspot in Europe. Vendors, visitors and speakers fuelled the buzzing atmosphere with conversations around specialist new equipment and thoughts on the future. Always looking to expand and improve, CTS Europe this year had a strong desire to be more inclusive and interactive with several key presentations involving audience participation.
the middle of a containership in the Pacific, or a piece of tamper-proof equipment that can monitor temperature, pressure and movement, there was a piece of apparatus on show. CTS Europe is one of the finest events to receive first-hand demonstrations of the new equipment and understand how it can contribute to improving the delicate clinical trials supply chain.
A recurring theme across the different presentations was the shift in the last five years or so from single-use to reusable packages. Speakers such as Paul Terry of Peli Biothermal were quick to highlight that a decade ago governments listed environmental impact near the bottom of their priority lists, but now such considerations are usually in the top five. This of course led to a change in the industry towards ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’ in an attempt to limit damage to the environment, hence the development of reusable packaging. While there are some difficult logistics to overcome and strict guidelines to adhere to, this has generated some innovative solutions that have increased trade across the supply chain.
Among the topics that were discussed in Milan were the necessity to re-train the recipients of reusable packages to break the routine of throwing things away. This is seen as being of pivotal importance as the financial benefits of investing in reusable packaging cannot be attained if the box is thrown out after only one or two uses - a simple, yet crucial, factor that is easily overlooked.
BUSTLING STANDS, COLOURFUL backdrops and flashing lights filled the hall at the Clinical Trial Supply Europe 2019 event in Milan last month for two days of discussions, debates and swapping business cards. CTS Europe was celebrating its 20th year and shows no sign of stopping any time soon.
Milan was the site of the show for the first time in 2017 and it was an apt choice once again as the manufacturing centre of Italy
Vendors of all sizes and specialisms were vying for the attention of the crowds to demonstrate what they can bring to the wider conversation within the industry. There has been a large push towards digitalisation and embracing the Internet of Things (IoT) to collect and valorise as much data as possible from all stages of the supply chain. Tables were overflowing with new technologies that can provide the highest-level data collections and shipment security for dozens of specific cargo types.
For businesses needing a specialist container that can be accurately tracked in
But, depending on the boxes, certain aspects have a specific shelf life, and what if there’s damage to the container in transit? How do these boxes actually get returned? All of these variables were discussed in length with great interaction with the audience. However, praise was still given to the accessibility of single-use packages, the ease of service they provide, and industry leaders were quick to point out that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. There is a clear shift towards reusable packages, but single use doesn’t appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.
However, an elephant in the room lurked. As boxes are becoming more efficient, »
smaller, lighter, and can be used repeatedly, it was questioned whether these developments would, ultimately, damage the shipper’s revenues and harm the industry. These fears appeared to be justified as images were presented showing the colossal difference in shipping sizes from only seven years earlier. A stack of fourteen neatly arranged, modern re-usable boxes filled the same space on the pallet as two large water-cooled containers. As shippers traditionally price by weight and size, it is conceivable that the new generation of far more size- and weight-efficient packages could harm their bottom lines. These fears were quickly laid to rest when graphs demonstrating the drastic increase in shipments were presented. The new packagings mean that producers are saving money per shipment and therefore shipping far more frequently. But graphs do not tell the full story. The conversation was then opened up to the floor to hear real-life experiences from all areas of the supply chain about this change in dynamic. Different experts described how their business structures had moved naturally to accommodate these changes and that they
have actually expanded on the whole due to the increase in shipment numbers.
Merck’s Patrick Pichler and Benjamin Geist engaged with the audience in a whole new fashion. With one running around the audience, microphone in hand, the other guided the conversation through a series of questions. Not only were these questions openly debated by the audience but there was also the opportunity to use personal smartphones to actively (and anonymously) vote on different answers. This provided a visual representation of attitudes in the room and further fuelled the debates across the industry. Discussions ranged from the necessity of re-certifying on tried-and-tested routings, the hypothetical risk assessments associated with split shipments, and the old favourite, ‘time versus quality’.
Out in the exhibition, one of the latest developments on show was the new Nelum Box by Tec4Med. Proudly stating to be “the world’s most advanced thermos solution for temperature-sensitive goods”, the Nelum Box is definitely an eye-catching piece of kit.
Sleek in appearance with very clear displays, it is perfectly suited as a stationary unit in laboratories or on the move. It is sterile, light, dynamic and an excellent addition to the roster of options.
Increasing the scale was Skycell and its diverse range of products for larger shipments. Skycell has had incredible success with its latest developments, including a 0.1 per cent temperature deviation since launch, earning the title of “safest system on the market”. The Skycell units can store energy for up to 160 hours, cover a variety of temperatures for different environments, and can provide a drastic saving in cost over a lifetime. In addition, continuing from the logistics issues of reusable packages, Skycell will deliver the system to the shipper and collect it from the consignee after use.
Sonoco has been busy providing plenty of access to different styles of packaging because the road from the manufacturing
floor to the destination can require several variables that need acute attention. Sonoco offers reusable packagings and is a specialist in temperature assurance when it comes to shipping goods. The flexibility of the products offered by Sonoco ensures that a great range of vaccines, biologics and pharmaceuticals can be transported safely whatever their specific needs.
Aside from the physical containers involved in clinical trials shipments, there was plenty on offer for those seeking more intimate knowledge of the logistics involved in the shipment of pharmaceuticals. Dozens of vendors offering expertise in particular regions and study areas were eager to explain the expansions they could bring to business and plenty of case studies to highlight their successes.
All good events provide a banquet, and CTS Europe did not disappoint. Plenty of tables were set out in the rooms either side of the main hall and the seats quickly filled every time there was a break in the schedule or during lunch. Coffees and teas were in abundance as caffeine-fuelled conversations blossomed across the room. The constant supply of fresh pastries was also highly
appreciated. Everything from preferred shipment routes and handlers to speculation about legislation changes in different regions were hotly discussed between mouthfuls.
As was to be expected at a European conference, Brexit was a sure-fire conversation starter. During one of the interactive panel sessions, speakers Alan Kennedy and Marc Sotty focused intensely on the topic, which was particularly relevant as a critical vote in the UK happened only the evening before. During one of the audience
participation moments of the talk, a show of hands clearly identified the level of uncertainty in the industry surrounding the implications of Brexit. There was mild optimism that a deal (of some form, no specifics given) would be reached in the next twelve months, but no one was willing to place money on it. It is fair to say that the industry representatives at CTS Europe are decidedly anti-Brexit and the philosophy for cohesion and closer international connections is prominent.
Industry leaders in the audience debated a range of potential outcomes from Brexit, mostly culminating in what the impact a change in trade legislation would mean for the quality of goods, whether shipments would spoil in delays and contemplating if shipments would have to go via Northern Ireland to try and bypass any port issues. Not many people were willing to run the risk of losing precious biospecimens on the back of a lorry caught in a 30-km tailback on the M20.
Next year, CTS Europe will be looking to expand in size and vendors and generate momentum going into its third decade of operation. Perhaps, by 2020, the industry will have an answer to some of the hypothetical questions posed in 2019. Keep an eye on the website, www.arena-international.com/ ctseurope, for further information. HCB
“A RECURRING THEME ACROSS THE SESSIONS WAS THE SHIFT FROM SINGLEUSE TO REUSABLE PACKAGINGS”
customer offerings. Despite today’s geopolitical uncertainties, we remain positive about our ability to translate new opportunities into future growth.’’
IMCD’s Americas segment was the star performer for the year, with operating EBITA up 69 per cent at €60.1m. That partly reflects the completion of the ET Horn acquisition at the end of July, but IMCD also notes that, despite geopolitical uncertainties, the North American chemicals distribution market showed good growth in 2018. In addition, Brazil’s economic recovery continued, with rising confidence buttressing momentum in consumer sentiment. In particular, IMCD Brasil’s pharmaceutical activities delivered solid growth. www.imcdgroup.com
Univar has completed the acquisition of Nexeo Solutions, creating what it calls “a leading global chemical and ingredients solutions provider”. The combined company is now trading as Univar Solutions, with a new website to reflect the revised branding.
“Univar Solutions is uniquely positioned to drive growth and deliver significant value for shareholders, customers, suppliers and employees,” says David Jukes, Univar Solutions president and CEO. “Together, we have the ability to redefine chemical and ingredients distribution, to deliver superior growth for our partners, people and shareholders. Our new brand name reflects our commitment to combine the best qualities of each legacy company to create an innovative industry leader.”
Univar Solutions will, the company says, provide customers with easy access to a broad selection of products from leading suppliers. Through a growing portfolio of value-added
services, Univar Solutions will “go beyond distribution to help accelerate innovation and efficiency in operations”. Backed by industryleading digital tools and a global network of 17 ‘Solution Centres’, the company promises to help create novel formulations and recipes that distinguish brands in the marketplace. www.univarsolutions.com
IMCD has reported 2018 revenues of €2.38bn, a 25 per cent increase on the 2017 figure, with operating EBITA up by a similar proportion at €202.1m. Adjusted for currency movements, revenues were up 29 per cent and EBITA 30 per cent.
“2018 was an outstanding year for IMCD, with all our regions contributing to this success,” says CEO Piet van der Slikke. “We have made good progress with the integration of our existing businesses in the US and Canada and with the acquisition of ET Horn, enabling IMCD US to become a nationally operating organisation. With our newly developed global digital infrastructure, we will continue to enhance
Azelis has acquired Chemroy, a Canadian distributor of specialty chemicals and food ingredients. Chemroy offers warehousing across Canada and the sale will place Azelis as one of the leading specialty distributors in the nation.
“This transaction is an important milestone for Azelis,” says Frank Bergonzi, CEO and president of Azelis Americas. “Chemroy is a leading distributor of specialty chemicals and food ingredients for CASE in Canada, with an excellent reputation. We share similar values and culture, and this combination will ensure a more robust product portfolio to our customers.”
“With the acquisition of Chemroy, we establish a strong footprint in Canada,” adds Hans Joachim Müller, Group CEO at Azelis. “This is an excellent strategic fit and we are excited by the opportunity for further growth, in both Canada and the US. Chemroy’s activities in the food and nutraceutical markets will allow us to expand this segment, by leveraging our relationships with global partners.”
John Graham, president of Chemroy, says: “We are confident in the success of this
acquisition, which is an exciting opportunity for our employees to join forces with an established global player in Azelis.” www.azelis.com
Quimidroga has again been awarded the distinction of Responsible Care RSE Certification of Responsible Company by the Business Federation of the Spanish Chemical Industry – Federación Empresarial de la Industria Química Española (FEIQUE).
“The adhesion to this programme is for us a motivation to achieve continuous improvement and to meet a series of actions that help us to be a better company,” says Quimidroga. “This certification further reinforces our commitment to compliance of the RSE policies and Sustainable Development.” www.quimidroga.com
Aditya Birla’s Epoxy Business has appointed Lintech International as its exclusive US distributor, effective 1 April 2019. “We are excited about the opportunity to expand our relationship with Aditya Birla epoxy,” says Randy Waldman, vice-president of Lintech. “Expanding our relationship to a national coverage area as well as adding their curing
agent products is a great addition to our product lines.”
“Lintech’s strong technical sales team, supported by extensive additive, resin and pigment product lines, gives us a strong distribution team across the US,” says Bill Buckley, vice-president of sales and marketing at Aditya Birla Epoxy Business, Americas. The products will include the EPOTEC® and CeTePox® epoxy resins, diluents and curing agents.
www.lintechinternational.com
DKSH’s board of directors proposes to elect Marco Gadola, Dr Wolfgang Baier and Jack Clemons as new members of the board. The move follows the announcement by chairman Dr Joerg Wolle and three other long-standing board members that they will not stand for re-election at this year’s AGM.
“We are very pleased to propose three highly qualified candidates for election to our board,” says Adrian T Keller, honorary chairman of DKSH. “With their relevant international expertise in DKSH’s industries and markets, our company will be sustainably strengthened. If elected, Baier and Clemons will become part of the board with immediate effect, while Gadola will join the board on 1 January 2020,
after handing over his responsibilities as CEO of Straumann Group. Until Marco Gadola’s proposal as chairman of DKSH at the AGM next year, I will stand for election for this term of office. I am looking forward to the work ahead of us. Both Marco Gadola and I will actively pursue DKSH’s strategy for future growth.”
Aceto has entered into a ‘stalking-horse’ asset purchase agreement with an affiliate of New Mountain Capital, a leading growth-oriented investment firm. “For the past several months, the board has been conducting a comprehensive evaluation of strategic alternatives to address the company’s debt burden in consultation with its financial and legal advisors while continuing to work cooperatively with its lenders,” says William C Kennally III, CEO of Aceto.
“After assessing its options, the board has determined that court-supervised sales of Aceto’s chemicals business assets and its subsidiary, Rising Pharmaceuticals, are in the best interest of the company and its stakeholders. This decision provides stability and deep capital resources to the company and, importantly, ensures the continuity of customer, partner and supplier relationships critical to the company’s businesses operations and success.”
Aceto has already reached agreement to sell Rising Pharmaceuticals to Shore Suven Pharma, a joint venture between India-based Suven Life Sciences and Shore Pharma Investments, a company founded by Aceto board member Vimal Kavuru to acquire generic drug assets.
FUEL IS THE driving force of any industry and the logistics of fuel distribution can be complex. To assist fuel suppliers navigate the business, the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers (FPS) will hold its annual FPS EXPO exhibition next month, with exhibitors including oil suppliers, tanker manufacturers, oil companies, lubricant companies, fleet operators, petroleum enforcement officers, environmental agencies, software companies and insurance advisors. More than 16
companies will be taking part for the first time.
FPS EXPO describes itself as the premier event for fuel distributors across the UK and Ireland. Guy Pulham, FPS chief executive, says:
“As 2019 is the year the FPS celebrates its 40th anniversary and the 39th anniversary of the FPS EXPO, we have added in some new and exciting things to our show’s line-up. The panel sessions promise to be a highlight for many of our visitors, who travel from afar to discover the latest industry news and for opportunities to engage with representatives from off grid energy-focused firms and industry leaders.”
The two-day event begins on 15 May at the Liverpool Exhibition Centre and will provide a showcase for the latest and greatest from the off-grid energy industry. A series of interactive panel sessions over the two-day event will cover the most important and pressing topics for the industry; there will be plenty of information to take away and many networking opportunities.
The main focus topics for the 2019 panel discussions include the UK supply chain, the seemingly ever-present spectre of Brexit and more tailored issues, such as the Clean Growth Strategy and Road to Zero government policies, as well as issues specific to Ireland. These panel discussions promise to be a highlight of the event and will offer an unrivalled opportunity to meet some of the key players in the industry, while also being a way of guiding conversations as industry faces some uncertain times.
The focus on the environment will be reflected in a new award, organised by FPS in collaboration with OilShield. The ‘green award’ is open to all FPS members and will go to the company that has implemented the environmental strategy that has produced the most positive results.
As is usual at these events, the exhibition stands are not the only draw for delegates. The opportunity to join a forum with other industry experts is something that cannot be missed. Being able to meet counterparts and forge relationships and new collaborations is an irreplaceable benefit of registering to attend.
One of the most prominent features of development through 2019 and into the future will be the ability to go green. Reducing the impact of industrial activity on the environment is high on the agenda for all businesses and governments, not least those active in the energy sector. Being able to showcase new developments and technologies to reach targets on cleaning the environment is essential. Several exhibitors at FPS EXPO will be announcing their latest pieces of kit to reduce emissions across the industry whilst improving efficiency.
One of those is Bio Fuels and Oils, which will present its Green Kerosene, which can reduce CO2 emissions by up to 17 per cent compared to conventional grades, and B100 Off Road diesel, which promises to reduce CO2 emissions by 63 per cent. B100 Off Road is a game-changing investment for generators, tractors, excavators, pumps, and non-road mobile machinery, says the company.
Greenergy, the UK’s largest and only national road fuel supplier, will exhibit its high-percentage biodiesel blend, B20. Not only does B20 offer measurable carbon benefits for users, it’s also compatible with current vehicle fleets without the need to invest in costly engine modifications. Additionally, thanks to the 2018 changes in biofuel supply legislation, B20 is actually less expensive than standard diesel. Historically, biodiesel blends have been more expensive and have necessitated vehicle alterations, while only containing around 7 per cent biodiesel, making the environmental benefits minimal.
Development comes in many varieties and events such as FPS EXPO are prime opportunities to experience the newest products and technology. Businesses are always reaching for further targets in usability, speed, and performance limits. Not only is the goal to hit new targets, but to also keep processes as simple as possible. This keeps the business organised, saves precious time, and can give rapid access to essential information.
OnlineFuels is providing its best solutions with a revolutionary online platform for
bulk fuel purchasing. Offering unparalleled market visibility, the team has worked diligently with buyers and sellers, including a collaboration with Shell, to expand the services. At FPS EXPO, OnlineFuels will be exclusively unveiling the latest update to its platform, which includes the highly anticipated ‘Delivered-in’ feature. Ordering a variety of fuels and getting them delivered is now as simple as entering an address. Normec has developed a new cutting-edge solution for those working with bitumen. The company will present its latest pneumatic bitumen foot valve at FPS EXPO. The new piece of kit clearly demonstrates the philosophy of innovation and evolution. It will allow users to continue working with higher temperatures (up to 300°C) and in scenarios where bitumen has hardened due to a decrease in temperatures.
Miles Macadam will be a fresh face for the seasoned veterans of FPS EXPO. The newcomer has decades of experience and reputation in the manufacture and installation of fuel-resistant systems. One of the highlights of Miles Macadam’s portfolio is Hardicrete™; an advanced reinforced surfacing material, designed
to withstand intense traffic loadings and fuel contamination. It acts as a hybrid between bitumen and concrete, combining high strength with flexibility and fast track installation. Hardicrete is routinely specified where a resistance to fuels and chemicals, or a high tolerance to deformation and abrasion, is required.
Finally, it’s safe to say that concrete is probably the most common connecting factor for all businesses in industry. It is used in infrastructure, to assist with drainage, provide long-term shelter, and much more. Concrete Canvas is giving visitors to FPS EXPO the opportunity to check out its revolutionary product, which is, essentially, concrete on a roll. Having been used across different continents for a variety of applications, Concrete Canvas’s product is proving incredibly versatile. It has been utilised as a solution for slope protection, channel linings, restoration work on damaged facilities, and even weed suppression. The durability of the product provided by Concrete Canvas is grabbing attention, particularly as it has been used in -40°C Russian winters and scorching Omani summers. HCB www.fpsshow.co.uk
ONLINEFUELS, A LEADING B2B online fuel sales platform in the UK, has been turning heads with its innovative way of comparing and purchasing fuels. OnlineFuels provides distributors with the opportunity to view all their fuel buying options in one place, delivering unparalleled market visibility.
The latest update for the online system, due to be unveiled in May, promises to provide an even greater level of service to users and clients and will include the highly anticipated Delivered-in feature. For those attending FPS EXPO 2019 there is the chance to have a sneak peek at the latest incarnation of the platform before wider release.
Purchasing fuel is an essential but timeconsuming part of industry. OnlineFuels has developed a way to make comparing, sourcing and actually buying fuel as easy and clear as possible. Users of the system can accurately make informed decisions through the use of live market charts that highlight price changes.
Additionally, the software provides the option to set alerts when the market reaches certain parameters, allowing users to set their own targets and never miss the opportunity to buy at the best prices. There are also the abilities to negotiate fuel prices, receive detailed reports and examine insights into previous purchases.
OnlineFuels will now be making ground in Germany by means of a new deal with Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH and the launch of a fuel sales platform for the German commercial B2B market. “Germany is the largest fuel market in Europe – an ideal place for us to expand our online offerings to Europe,” says James Stairmand, founder and CEO of OnlineFuels.
Jörg Debus, Shell’s commercial fuels manager, Europe and Africa, says: “With an online platform we want to give our B2B customers the opportunity to order products around the clock to mitigate potential exposures. In addition, the platform aims to make the oil purchasing process as simple and efficient as possible for our clients.”
Stairmand says of the deal: “This is an exciting move for us. We have previously successfully worked with Shell in the UK market. When the company approached us to target Germany, it made complete sense. Our vision is to prove the model in UK and Germany and to keep pushing further afield, the whole time keeping the product as consistent as possible, meaning we can make our platform as great for the user as possible.”
Looking to the future, particularly as the market moves away from the use of fossil fuels and into renewables, it will be interesting to see how providers such as OnlineFuels incorporate these changes in scope. Whatever the main fuel source is, it will still need to be bought and sold in the most efficient and effective way possible, and OnlineFuels seems to have the answer.
The German subsidiary, OLF Deutschland Oil GmbH, will be based in Hamburg and the plan is to go live in the first half of 2019. HCB www.onlinefuels.com
VTG AG HAS reported unaudited 2018 revenues of €1.07bn, up 5.7 per cent on the previous year, largely due to what it describes as “dynamic development” in its Railcar Division, where fleet capacity utilisation hit 93.5 per cent by year-end, the highest level for ten years.
EBITDA for the year came in at €349.3m, up 1.7 per cent on the 2017 figure; that increase would have been 7.9 per cent but for two onetime charges related to the takeover of Nacco and the public takeover bid by Warwick Holding.
“The unaudited result shows that our takeover of Nacco was the right move, an important step in the long-term development of the company,” says Dr Heiko Fischer, chairman of the Executive Board of VTG AG.
“Although the cost of the transaction placed a burden on Group profit, we are already seeing confirmation that we have strengthened our position for the long-term future. We are confident that we will be able to continue this positive trend in 2019, too.”
Increasing demand and the expansion of the rail fleet following the Nacco acquisition pushed revenue in the Railcar Division up 11.4 per cent to €579.9m, with EBITDA up 11 per cent at €381.4m. The Rail Logistics Division fared less well, after the loss of two major orders, a rail strike in France and a shortage of engine drivers. Revenue fell 3.6 per cent to €324.5m and EBITDA was off by 22 per cent at €6.5m.
Volumes were well up in the Tank Container Logistics Division, pushing revenue ahead by 6.9 per cent to €168.2m, but changes in product flows left equipment underutilised, raising demurrage and empty tank repositioning costs. Growing demand
in Europe was welcome, but worsening infrastructure bottlenecks in both road and rail transport added yet further to demurrage and freight costs. As a result, the Division’s EBITDA fell 42.3 per cent to €6.5m.
VTG expects the coming year to be better. Despite a loss of momentum in European economies, fundamentals remain solid.
Furthermore, a cut in track prices for railfreight traffic in Germany is expected to provide a positive stimulus. Moreoever, VTG will enjoy the first full year contribution from the acquired Nacco assets and costs related
to the transaction will be lower. Full-year EBITDA is forecast to be in the range of €480m to €510m.
In addition, VTG has submitted an application to delist its shares from the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. This follows a voluntary offer from Warwick Holding GmbH, an affiliate of Morgan Stanley Infrastructure, which currently owns some 71 per cent of VTG. Warwick Holding will support a rights offering, to partly refinance an outstanding bond, and will acquire all shares not subscribed in the offering. The delisting is a condition of this offer.
Warwick Holding has said that it “assures the support for the course set by VTG” and, to the extent legally possible, will aim to keep an independent chairman and at least two independent members on the supervisory board until the end of the shareholders’ meeting in 2022. It has also committed to keep Hamburg as the statutory and administrative seat of VTG until at least June 2029, something that, Dr Fischer says, “gives us planning security for the future”.
The delisting was expected to take place this month. HCB www.vtg.com
H ESSERS HAS announced ambitious aspirations to expand and develop its sites in Genk, Belgium. H Essers, a leading European logistics and transport company for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, high-value and healthcare goods, is seeking to form a nucleus for road, water and rail freight in an area it has dubbed the H Essers Valley. The planned changes are due to be completed in several phases and secure H Essers’ place in Limburg for the foreseeable future.
Following the opening of the first direct rail service between Genk and Trieste, established recently in cooperation with Lineas (HCB March 2019, page 42), H Essers is now planning to acquire the Euro Terminal Genk (ETG) rail terminal from Lineas and LRM. The facility, located close to H Essers’ head office, will be renamed Essers Railport Genk.
Work will be undertaken to improve the facility, especially in the area of security, to
provide a suitable rail transport hub for H Essers’ strategic markets.
“It is a perfect supplement to our synchromodal network,” says Gert Bervoets, H Essers’ CEO. “In the future, we will further develop our rail connections to Antwerp, Ghent and Zeebrugge in cooperation with Lineas. In this way we will optimise our connection with the port cities.”
H Essers has been working closely with Lineas on its Belgium-Romania train connection for several years, which has strengthened the business ties between the two firms. In Belgium, H Essers and Lineas will continue to focus on the progress of the Genk-Antwerp and AntwerpGhent-Zeebrugge rail lines. This continued project means transport to and from the port cities is smooth and sustainable. These works have highlighted Genk as a sustainable link between the intercontinental flows via seaports and Europe as a whole.
In 2020, H Essers’ European cross dock will be moved from Transportlaan to the former Hörmann site along Woudstraat. The benefit of this change will be that it will allow the pharmaceutical warehousing units on Transportlaan to be expanded and improved to better suit the growing demands of clients. Furthermore, the expansions across warehousing, transport and IT systems means that plenty of new job opportunities are being created. There is a particular focus on the continuation of developing in-house IT systems providing tailored solutions for customers and helping to drive job growth.
H Essers originally applied for permission to expand the Transportlaan site in 2015 but this was denied by the Council of State. Subsequently, H Essers initiated ‘Plan B’ involving
the previous Hörmann sites, which will be renovated. However, there are concerns about environmental impacts.
“As CEO of H Essers, I know and understand the sensitivity of expanding at a location where trees are present, which is why I want to communicate this expansion at the Hörmann site very transparently,” says Bervoets. “The site is intended for industry, which means that we can use it for industrial activities. Moreover, it has already been partly developed. The trees will be removed to prepare the sites for use. We will compensate this by creating a larger and valuable nature area in the vicinity. In consultation with the Belgian Nature and Forest Agency, this area will be in Oudsbergen.”
In 2018, H Essers constructed the H Essers Dry Port Genk along the Albert Canal on the former Ford site. The first development on the site, a 32,000-m2 storage unit for chemical
goods, is already operational. The head office is also being relocated to a new building on the current site on Transportlaan, which is planned to be open and fully operational in 2020. This new head office to become the decision-making centre for ongoing international expansion.
“In order to respond to the market, it is crucial to continue to grow, innovate and invest,” says Bervoets. “We are far past the point of being just a road haulier, but our master plan will only increase our leadership position as a synchromodal logistics service provider. With this plan, H Essers also gives new impulses to the Flemish logistics sector.”
The H Essers Valley involves a total investment of €121.2m. The new investments of €26.2m are in addition to the previously announced €80m for Dry Port Genk and €15m for the new head office. HCB www.essers.com
THE PORT OF Antwerp has become well known for its open attitude to environmentally beneficial innovations; it is also apparent that methanol is an important product for many industries within the port. So it should come as little surprise to learn that Antwerp is leading a project to produce methanol in a more sustainable way. The project will bring together several partners with a range of expertise, something that is only possible on this level through the existing port community.
Industries in Antwerp currently use around 300,000 tonnes of methanol per year in chemical processes, for fuel production and in a range of industrial products. Today, that is all derived from finite hydrocarbon sources. By using a new production process, the Port of Antwerp will be taking practical steps towards making the port more sustainable.
“In practical terms we will produce methanol from waste CO2 and sustainably generated hydrogen,” explains Didier Van Osselaer, project manager at the Port of Antwerp. “The waste CO2 will be collected by a new process called Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU) in which at least some of the CO2 emissions are recovered. This CO2 is then combined with hydrogen generated on a sustainable basis using green energy in a new electrolysis plant. These two processes together form the perfect basis for producing sustainable methanol.”
The Port of Antwerp expects this process to save at least one tonne of CO2 emissions for
every tonne of methanol produced. In addition, methanol will be used as a sustainable fuel in its own right. Indeed, the Port says, it is aiming to put a methanol-fuelled tug into service in the near future.
“With this innovative project we aim to smooth the path for alternative energy sources in the Port of Antwerp,” says Port CEO Jacques Vandermeiren. “I am proud that we are able to sign this collaboration agreement today with five crucial partners from among others the electricity, fuel and chemical industries. Our role as Port Authority is to bring people from different sectors together, in order to face the
challenges of tomorrow. Today marks yet another step in the right direction.”
Those partners include power supplier Engie, storage terminal operator Oiltanking, Indaver, Helm-Proman and Vlaamse Milieuholding (VMH). Indaver has the necessary expertise in the collection of CO2 while Helm-Proman will help find markets for the methanol output.
“Innovation is key when it comes to facing challenges large and small,” says Philippe Muyters, Flemish Minister for Finance, Budget, Work, Town and Country Planning and Sports. “We won’t solve the climate problem by taxing entrepreneurs into the ground. This innovative project shows once again that our companies are very much part of the solution, especially when they come together and collaborate as here in the port of Antwerp.”
“I am very glad that Port of Antwerp has taken on this role. It shows that we have innovative thinking here in Flanders,” adds Koen van den Heuvel, Minister for the Environment, Nature and Agriculture. “Just like the project for onshore power, this project will help us to achieve our ambitious climate objectives. At the same time it will save primary raw materials and take us a step further in the transition to a circular economy.” HCB www.portofantwerp.com
XPO Logistics has launched its XPO Connect digital marketplace in Europe, following its initial roll-out in North America last year. The platform is unique in the industry, using a combination of multimodal architecture, machine learning and the company’s predictive analytics.
Customers have comprehensive visibility into freight movements, including geo-location, weather conditions, traffic and other factors relevant to shipment status.
“XPO Connect transforms visibility into business intelligence when transacting for capacity,” says CIO Mario Harik. “Our proprietary algorithms turn torrents of data into relevant information in seconds, enhancing decision-making. Our goal, as always, is to drive significant efficiencies throughout our customers’ supply chains.” www.xpo.com
Kube & Kubenz has taken delivery of three new LNG-fuelled Iveco Stralis tractor units at its Hamburg depot. The new units offer considerable savings in terms of emissions, the company says.
“The ongoing and constant renewal of our fleet is always in our focus and we do not close ourselves to new technologies,” says managing director Konstantin Kubenz. “We are very curious how the new vehicles prove themselves in everyday life.” www.kubekubenz.com
Greiwing has formally opened its new warehouse in Burghausen, in southern Germany, after a successful test period. The facility comprises two halls with a combined floor space of 20,500 m2 and some 37,800 pallet spaces, primarily for PVC and PP granules. The facility also features a silo tower and two cleaning stations for silo and tank vehicles. Part of the capacity is rated for the handling of hazardous susbtances, while there is also space to store products that require Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards
“With the opening of the new facility we have again strengthened our presence at important chemical sites in Germany,” says managing partner Jürgen Greiwing. “We have thus created the framework to continue to grow and expand our position as a partner to the chemical industry.”
The site, which will serve the nearby chemical parks in Burghausen and Burgkirchen, has been built at a cost of some €35m over a period of 16 months. “The terminal connection gives us a considerable amount of flexibility. This gives us the opportunity to handle transports in an environmentally friendly manner via rail. This aspect is gaining importance not only for us, but also for more and more shippers,” says Greiwing. www.greiwing.de
Bay Logistik is to open its new tank cleaning station in Waiblingen, near Stuttgart, Germany on 15 April. The new Bay Clean site, 900 metres from its existing facility, has two wash bays for chemicals and foodgrade products, a power cleaning head for containers and large compartments, and a covered truck wash. The old site closed in March.
The new facility has been designed to the latest standards, allowing cleaning with up to five heads simultaneously. Bay Logistik intends to improve services further, handling additional products and introducing steam cleaning, and will also look at extending opening hours should demand emerge. www.bay-logistik.de
Quala has acquired Container Experts, which operates three state-of-the-art IBC cleaning and maintenance services in Texas, Louisiana and Ohio. The deal brings Quala’s North American network to 73 locations. “Everyone here at Container Experts is very excited about joining the Quala team,” says William Dworsky, president of Container Experts. “There’s no doubt that our customers will benefit from Quala’s network of nationwide terminals. From a logistics standpoint, our customers will save on transportation costs, which is fantastic.” Scott Harrison, Quala CEO, says: “Adding Container Experts’ base of clients is the perfect growth catalyst for Quala. This acquisition aligns perfectly with our mission to improve, develop, and grow.” www.quala.us.com
THE MARITIME SECTOR as a whole is facing up to some difficult changes, not least the requirement to reduce sulphur oxide emissions that enters into force next year. The chemical tanker sector is no exception to this – and it has plenty of its own problems as well. The extent of the challenges facing the sector were well illustrated by the hefty turnout at the Chemical and Parcel Tanker Conference, held in early March in London. Organised by Navigate Events in collaboration with the International Parcel Tankers Association (IPTA), the two-day conference features a wide range of presentations on the hot topics, although the event’s chairman, Capt Ian Finlay, opened proceedings by stressing that the two most contentious issues are the global sulphur cap and the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO)
emerging strategies to deal with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Indeed, IMO secretary-general Kitack Lim made an early appearance to stress the importance of those two strands in IMO’s current work. As had been the case with the imposition of the sulphur cap – the so-called ‘IMO 2020’ provision – where various interests had assumed that the deadline would slip in the face of industry push-back, there will be no relaxation in IMO’s efforts to reduce the environmental impact of shipping activities. Indeed, IMO 2020 will be followed by IMO 2030 and IMO 2050 as the Organisation introduces a phased approach to GHG emissions reduction.
Anyone in the audience who needed more detail was provided with the full story by the
first speaker, Kirsi Tikka from classification society ABS, who has been intimately involved in the development of industry’s approach to the new IMO rules. She described the IMO 2020 sulphur regulations as “probably the most significant rule change since the double hull requirements in the 1980s”, as they will impact not only the shipping industry and bunker suppliers but also refiners and, potentially, other fuel consumers.
Ms Tikka said ABS expects that the 0.5 per cent sulphur cap will probably be met mainly through the use of compliant fuels, predominantly marine gasoil (MGO) and 0.5 per cent low-sulphur fuel oil. Some shipowners have chosen to go for exhaust scrubbers, which will allow them to continue to burn non-compliant fuels, but the comparative economics of the two options are as yet unclear. She predicted, however, that the switch away from standard grades will involve as much as 3.0m bpd.
There are, though, some technical challenges to the use of 0.5 per cent sulphur fuel oil; there are concerns over the safety of the new grades, consistency in quality and availability, and compatibility with existing engines. Nor is there yet any standard for such fuels: the current ISO 8217 standard
does not address them, although there will be a publicly available specification to provide guidance on application of ISO 8217.
There is also still a lack of firm information on what types of fuel will be available where and Ms Tikka predicted a period of volatility in 2020. “We can expect changes in product flows, including crude oil, slow steaming to control the immediate price increase, and a number of vessels out of service for installation of scrubbers,” she said. Charterers may have some input in the process, expressing a preference for compliant (and thus efficient) ships or for those with scrubbers. In any event, there is likely to be a reduction in effective fleet capacity, and she expected to see accelerated scrapping.
Industry is starting to look beyond 2020 to the viability of LNG and other alternative fuels, but more of that later.
Ms Tikka looked at what the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has been up to recently. At its 73rd session in October 2018, MEPC adopted a resolution prohibiting the carriage of non-compliant fuel, along with guidelines for fuel oil suppliers and users. MEPC’s next session, taking place next month, is expected to adopt guidelines for consistent implementation.
The Sub-committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) also looked at consistent implementation at its sixth session in February 2019, and addressed some technical concerns over the impact of the sulphur cap on fuels and machinery. PPR 6 also drafted amendments to Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol), including definitions, fuel verification procedures and the installation of designated sampling points. It also produced draft guidelines on onboard sampling and the role of port state control in monitoring compliance. PPR 6 also worked on developing guidance to ship operators on what to do with
any non-compliant fuel oil remaining onboard their vessels.
Ms Tikka stressed the importance to owners of developing ship implementation plans (SIPs); they should assess the risks of burning compliant fuels and how to mitigate them.
The International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) has its own recommendations on ship implementation plans, as IBIA director Unni Einemo explained. The SIP is a non-mandatory form to help ships plan and demonstrate the steps that have been taken to make them compliant. There is an appendix covering the impact on machinery systems, which will help owners prepare plans for operating with a variety of fuel types with different handling characteristics, and another appendix on tank cleaning options.
Ms Einemo offered a simple mnemonic for shipowners: Prepare the hardware, Plan for the switch, and Practice fuel switching. Crews will need to be trained, especially if they have not already been involved in sailing in Emission Control Areas (ECAs).
There are, though, some unresolved issues, Ms Einemo said. Marpol Annex VI provides procedures for taking fuel samples for sulphur verification, but not for in-use samples. Furthermore, experience from ECAs has shown that the determination of non-compliance has been inconsistent and the current provisions leave room for
different interpretations. There are also some outstanding issue for MEPC 74 to deal with, she said. Will ships have to de-bunker noncompliant fuel or can alternatives be agreed (and if they have to de-bunker, how will it be done)? What happens if the bunker delivery note says the fuel is compliant but the ship’s own tests suggest otherwise?
It is also apparent that 0.5 per cent sulphur fuel oil will be blended from different components, including distillates and lowsulphur residual fuels, and that each supplier will have its own approach. This will raise some interesting safety issues, particularly surrounding the measurement of flashpoint.
Claus Vogel of MAN Energy Solutions looked at what the 2020 sulphur cap means for marine engines. Those that run lowsulphur fuel oil will need new cermet piston rings and engineers will need to look at lube oil performance. He predicted that scrubber uptake will be slow due to the upfront investment needed and a lack of confidence in future price spreads. As a result, MAN is forecasting that only 13 per cent of the fleet will be equipped with scrubbers by 2035; Vogel also said he believes that LPG will start getting attention as an alternative fuel.
An operator’s viewpoint was provided by Michael Eskling, managing director of »
global chartering at Uni-Tankers, who said there is still plenty of uncertainty about the future – crew training procedures, bunker segregation, costs – even though the future is only ten months away. “It’s a whole new world, especially for owners,” he said.
He advised those worrying about IMO 2020 to make a plan, educate their crews and trial new procedures, and to be safe. “Don’t switch fuels in busy trade lanes,” he advised. “Start now!” he said, although it’s probably already too late to be making a start.
Eskling advised owners to talk to their bunker suppliers and ensure that they know where to find the fuels they need. It will not be good if they have to rely on MGO for a compliant fuel. He also said he expects compliant fuel to be widely available from the third quarter this year; he advised owners to start using it as soon as possible, so they have time to learn how to deal with it.
If industry is beginning to get to grips with IMO 2020, it will not be long before they have a whole other world of worry. IMO’s approach to GHG emissions reduction will impose new restrictions as from 2030, with CO2 emissions needing to fall by 40 per cent from their 2008
level. By 2050 that figure will be 70 per cent, something that will be “quite a challenge”, according to Sveinung Oftedal from the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, who is also the chair of PPR. “Are we doing this just to make life difficult for industry?” he asked. “No – it’s to make life possible.”
Agreement of IMO’s initial strategy on GHG emissions was reached in April 2018 at MEPC 72; in addition to the CO2 reduction targets, that meeting agreed to improve the energy efficiency of ships and the review of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) – something that has been particularly problematical for chemical tankers – is an ongoing project.
To meet the 2030 and 2050 targets, it is clear that technical innovations and alternative fuel sources will be crucial. IMO has already sketched out a number of mandatory and voluntary measures for the short and medium term and the MEPC meeting in May 2019 is expected to consider proposals from member states and industry organisations. The plan is for the strategy to be revised in 2023 on the basis of discussions up to then.
Whatever happens, the 2030 and 2050 deadlines will involve a lot more work than
those associated with sulphur oxide emissions reduction; indeed, Oftedal said, some of the necessary technologies are still ten or more years away from development.
Some of those technological issues were addressed by Edwin Pang, senior naval architect at Leadship and the Royal Institute of Naval Architects’ (RINA) representative at IMO. Industry will be unable to meet the CO2 targets without alternative fuels, he stressed. MEPC 72 said that the carbon intensity of shipping should decline through the implementation of further phases of the EEDI for new ships, but Pang showed how various viable energy efficiency improvements could be applied without having an effect on a ship’s EEDI, suggesting that tweaks to the EEDI are not the right approach.
More detail was put on that by Jasper Faber of CE Delft, who ran through some of the measures that will have to be implemented. In the short term – up to 2023 – the initial IMO strategy envisages improvements to operational energy efficiency, along with the development of technologies to use zerocarbon fuels. In the medium term – from 2023 to 2030 – innovation and the use of alternative fuels will begin. After 2030, the strategy will aim to make the transition to zero-carbon fuels.
“Only measures that impact operational efficiency can ensure that the 2030 Level of Ambition is met,” Faber said. In the absence of low-carbon fuels, only speed reduction can achieve that goal, possibly combined with technical improvements such as energyefficient design and devices. Indeed, MEPC’s meeting in May will discuss a proposal from the Clean Shipping Coalition to impose a limit on average vessel speeds. Another paper from France is proposing a speed limit together with a maximum annual fuel consumption limit per ship from 2020.
In the medium to long term, attention will have to move to transitioning from fossil fuels to zero-carbon fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, biofuels or synthetic
fuels derived from waste CO2. There are a number of policy options, which may involve straightforward regulation or the development of financial mechanisms to prompt the use of alternative fuels.
The issue for shipowners is that, if such measures are going to start appearing from 2030 onwards, they will affect ships being ordered or built today. New ships will need different fuel systems, and different arrangements, but the future is still uncertain. Will there be a dominant alternative fuel and, if so, which one?
Oftedal and Faber were joined in a panel discussion by two representatives of shipowners, Mark Cameron, COO of Ardmore Shipping, and Manish Jain, operations director of Womar. Cameron expressed concern about slow steaming, saying that minimum power needs to be available, even if it not used during normal operations. “Slow steaming is ok, but limiting available power is unsafe,” he said. Jain was concerned about the need for owners to invest in technology when they do not know if it will be allowed by IMO. He thought that it would be useful if IMO could generate a ‘white list’ of power technologies.
Oftedal advised owners to leave space in their new ship designs to accommodate new engines. These might well be larger than existing power units, as the energy density of alternative fuels will be lower. “Owners know this is coming and need to take account,” he said. Cameron felt it is a brave owner that is ordering ships now to trade in a post-2030 world. Indeed, he said, some owners have told him they will not be ordering new ships with traditional engines any more.
After the lunch break, three presentations looked at some practical examples of using technology to improve sustainability in shipping. Brian Madsen, head of machinery and systems at Knud E Hansen naval architects, pointed out that many ships are not operated at their design speed. After all, shipyards and designers are not to know what the market will require of a new ship. Barry Kidd of International Paint and Ole Jorgen Tveit of Jotun Paints both gave some illustrations of how hull coatings can improve vessel performance.
Anyone expecting some respite from the onslaught of IMO regulations was to be disappointed, as IPTA’s Janet Strode came to the podium to deliver her regular update of changes specific to the chemical tanker sector. There are, for instance, a number of significant changes in the pipeline affecting the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) that will enter into force on 1 January 2021.
A number of products will move to Type 1, with some shifting between Type 2 and Type 3 or vice versa. There was nothing unexpected about this, Strode said. However, more significantly, several products will now be subject to the toxic vapour detection requirements, which bring with them specifications for the location of exhaust openings, vapour return lines, pressure/vacuum valves and stowage restrictions (specifically, not adjacent to fuel tanks). The list of products involved is long and includes some high-volume substances, including various alcohols, glycols and acids, as well as styrene, »
toluene, tall oil, ethylbenzene, vinyl acetate, some olefin mixtures, and others.
The methanol industry has expressed concern at these changes, particularly the stowage restrictions. Methanol is usually moved in dedicated tankers and the inability to carry cargo adjacent to fuel tanks will result in a reduction in overall carrying capacity. This seems to run counter to IMO’s efforts in terms of sustainability. Also, the classification of methanol as toxic – something that has proved contentious also in other modes of transport – runs into conflict with the International Code of Safety for Ship Using Gases or Other Low-flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code). IMO’s Working Group on the Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards (ESPH) insists on the toxic classification of methanol but has agreed not to include the stowage restrictions in the special requirements for this product.
Recently adopted amendments to Marpol Annex II focus largely on issues surrounding the carriage of waxy products, following several incidents in which waxy residues washed up on beaches in northern Europe. There was a lot of discussion on this subject, Strode said, not least since the problem does not appear to be a feature elsewhere in the world. It was finally agreed to adopt a prewash requirement for 44 products, mostly vegoils and waxes, as from January 2021. The pre-wash is to be carried out at the port of discharge. If the problem persists, around
80 more cargoes have been identified as further candidates, including some alcohols, phthalates, polyolefins and tall oil.
IMO has also clarified that the new breed of energy-rich fuels derived from biological feedstocks and which comprise only individual hydrocarbon chemicals are to be carried under Marpol Annex I. ESPH will work on a full assessment of these products, which will be listed in a new Annex 12 to MEPC.2/Circ.
Strode stressed that this change does not affect fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) biofuels.
There followed an interesting session looking at confined space entry and tank cleaning. Lance Nunez of Dow pointed out the huge amount of time surveyors spend inspecting tanks, something that is already a highrisk activity and getting riskier as purging becomes more common. Dow has been looking at the tools that are available to reduce or remove the need for confined space entry on the chemical tankers it uses.
For instance, Dow has begun using wash water analysis as an alternative to the wall wash test. This involves taking samples from inlets and manifolds during tank washing to look for evidence of prior cargo; when the wash water is clean, the tank is verified clean.
So far, this process works best with stainless steel cargo tanks and not with all cargoes. One benefit is that the approach is strictly data-driven, so is objective and repeatable.
Dow is gradually expanding its use of wash water analysis, which is so far used on around 7 per cent of bulk shipments; the company is, Nunez said, beginning to get buy-in from its customers.
Further insight into the tank washing process was provided by Guy Johnson of L&I Maritime, who said that ships generally over-clean their cargo tanks in order to avoid failing the inspection. The wall wash test is strict but it is subjective – it only takes a random sample from the tank wall. Indeed, Johnson said, wall wash standards are now far stricter than cargo quality standards.
Johnson provided more technical detail on the wash water analysis test that is being used by Dow, applying UV spectrometry to analysis water quality. This approach, Johnson said, gives a more comprehensive analysis of the cleanliness of the tank as well as the lines – and it is the lines that are the source of most cargo contamination, he said.
Given all the other problems facing chemical tanker operators on the regulatory front, the potential to save time – and therefore money – by removing the need for surveyors to enter tanks must come as an unexpected boon.
HCB will follow up next month with a full report from the PPR6 meeting. Ongoing information relating to chemical tankers can be found on the IPTA website, www.ipta.org.uk. HCB
ODFJELL TANKERS ACHIEVED revenues of $850.8m in 2018, a 1 per cent improvement over the 2017 figure, but EBITDA fell 13 per cent to $108.7m. Kristian Mørch, CEO of parent Odfjell SE, stated in his presentation of the company’s annual results that the fourth quarter of 2018 “concluded a challenging year for chemical tankers”.
The company is, though, confident that the market has turned a corner, with evidence later in the year that rates were moving in the right direction and indications that the first quarter of 2019 would continue that trend. “This is consistent with our view that the market has healthy fundamentals,”
Mørch continued. “We do expect continued volatility but we believe our markets have passed the bottom.”
That belief is founded on several indicators. Rising bunker costs through 2018, while hedged to some extent, raised voyage costs but, following a fall in bunker prices late in the fourth quarter, Odfjell now expects lower costs during 2019. It is also noticeable that swing tonnage was moving back into the clean products (CPP) market during the fourth quarter, bringing the chemical market back towards a sustainable balance.
Trade volumes are also taking an optimistic turn. Palm oil exports increased from September 2018 onwards, with a consequent impact on freight rates in the fourth quarter, and methanol exports from the US and the Middle East have had a positive impact on long-haul employment. Odfjell notes that the escalating trade war prompted by the US has
in fact led to incremental demand and new trade lanes opening up.
For example, while the US exported 212m tonnes of styrene to China in 2017, that figure dropped to 128m tonnes in 2018; at the same time US exports to the Middle East increased from 9m tonnes to 117m tonnes, and Middle East exports to China increased by 81m tonnes. The net result of these changes was a 7 per cent increase in tonne-mile employment.
Indeed, Odfjell says, the concern is not so much on the impact on trade volumes but the impact of trade and tariff wars on the overall global economy.
There are promising signs on the vessel supply side, too. Contracting of newbuildings has declined steadily since a peak in mid-2014 and, Odfjell says, “interest remains low”. Indeed, it adds, 60 per cent of the orders placed over the past two years have been for replacement tonnage or are in the over-50,000 dwt or under-18,000-dwt sectors.
The current orderbook stands at some 8 per cent of the current trading fleet, which works out at a very manageable 2.6 per cent annual fleet growth through to end-2021. That is without taking account of the potential for additional scrapping – some 17 per cent of the core chemical tanker fleet was built between 1995 and 2000 and of an age that means demolition is being considered – as well as the removal of swing tonnage from the core chemical and vegoil trades.
Odfjell also considers there is the potential that, following the introduction of the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) sulphur cap in marine fuels on 1 January 2020, there may be an increase in slow steaming to ameliorate the effects of higher bunker fuel prices.
While the full impact of those new rules has yet to be felt, Odfjell notes that the initial price spread between marine gasoil and very low-sulphur fuel oil has been around $130/tonne so far in 2019. It anticipates that Odfjell Tankers will use compliant fuel on the basis that “price spreads do not look alarming”. HCB www.odfjell.com
STENA BULK HAS expressed its pleasure with the way its foray into the chemical tanker business has turned out. “Utilisation of and entry into the chemicals market has gone better than expected, and we have secured a good market position that we are continuing to build on,” says Erik Hånell, president and CEO. “We have achieved this through not only our hard work in marketing, but also through operational performance”
Stena Bulk has had its fleet of 13 ‘IMOIIMAX’ vessels – all 50,000 dwt MR tankers – on the market for a year now. Evaluation of the fleet’s performance shows that they have been successful both in terms of performance and business.
The 13 sister vessels, built between 2015 and 2018, trade in one of Stena Bulk’s global logistics systems, which focuses on refined petroleum products, vegetable oils and chemicals. They are part of a 60-strong fleet operated from Stena Bulk’s new office in Copenhagen, supported by offices in Singapore, Houston and Dubai and the head office in Gothenburg.
“It’s now been just over four years since we took delivery of our first vessel in the IMOIIMAX series and the vessels have performed beyond our expectations,” says Hånell. “Both the technical and the commercial concepts have proved to be very
successful and have set a new standard for cargo efficiency and bunker consumption.
“The IMOIIMAX fleet is a significant and competitive addition to our high-quality fleet. At the same time, it is an important step forward and a development of our existing sophisticated trading system,” adds Hånell.
The IMOIIMAX vessel concept was designed with a focus on flexibility and is a further development of an already well-established concept, the company says. The innovative technical design was developed by Stena Bulk and Stena Teknik together with the Chinese shipyard GSI. It offers several advantages such as extra-large cargo flexibility, a high level of safety and economical fuel consumption.
The tankers are configured with 18 cargo tanks, each with a maximum capacity of 3,000 m³ to fit in with chemical tanker regulations. This also provides for good flexibility in terms of cargo combinations.
The tanks have a Jotun Flexline coating, which means that they can also be cleaned easily and can switch quickly between different cargoes to serve different markets.
Furthermore, the IMOIIMAX tanker’s cargo flexibility and ability to quickly clean the cargo tanks for different cargoes maximises its capacity utilisation rate.
“The vessels perform well in terms of speed and bunker consumption. Additionally, in respect of loading, transport, discharging and tank cleaning, the design has technically performed above expectations,” concludes Hånell.
Aside from efficient tank cleaning and flexibility in cargo handling, the IMOIIMAX vessels were designed with a number of other advanced features to reduce fuel consumption. They have main engine autotuning, a highly efficient boiler with heat recovery from multiple sources, and an aerodynamic design for the accommodation block and bridge. In addition, propeller energy loss can be recovered and the ships are fitted with onboard nitrogen generation. HCB www.stenabulk.com
an indication of a market upturn and, with earnings in the clean product (CPP) trades also low, a lot of swing tonnage was operating in the vegoil and chemical markets, resulting in a massive over-supply of vessels.
THIS YEAR’S ANNUAL review of chemical tanker fleets, which appears on the following pages, shows a number of significant differences from that published by HCB last year (April 2018, page 40). One of the most glaring changes is the sharp reduction in tonnage figures listed in the column headed ‘newbuildings on order’. Less obvious, but still as significant, is the fact that this year’s listing runs somewhat shorter than last years, following consolidation among fleet operators over the past year.
HCB headlined last year’s survey ‘Irrational behaviour’. The orderbook had stayed high for too long, despite a complete absence of
Many of those newbuildings have now arrived in the operating fleet and have done so at a time when the CPP market is picking up, many older vessels are going for demolition ahead of the IMO 2020 deadline, and trade volumes are recovering nicely. That is not to say that pure chemical tanker operators are doing well – recent earnings announcements show that, while things are improving, operators are not completely out of the woods yet. But there is optimism that an upturn is just around the corner.
Rather pleasingly, there has as yet been no sign that owners are going back to the yards to expand their fleets in anticipation of better earnings to come. Apart from fleet renewals, owners appear not to have the appetite nor the funds to indulge in risky contracting right now. The investment funds that saw potential in the coated MR tanker sector, which is more commodified than pure chemical tankers, are also avoiding further moves.
The medium-term outlook for chemical tankers seems bright but there are clouds on the horizon, which are perhaps also discouraging speculative investment. The most obvious is the impending IMO 2020 sulphur cap; the latest research suggests that the vast majority of chemical tanker operators are planning to burn lowsulphur fuels rather than invest in scrubbers, and while forecasts indicate that the price differential between standard and low-sulphur fuels will be manageable, owners do not have a firm idea of their likely operating costs next year.
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has also put in place ongoing provisions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which will require a change to operational practices by 2030 and, by 2050, a total move away from hydrocarbon-based fuels. Those deadline may seem far off, but ships have a 20- or 25-year life expectancy, so any newbuildings contracted today will have to take account of future operating requirements.
HCB
A note on the tables: the fleets listed here include pure owners, managers and pool operators. As a result, individual vessels may be counted more than once. The figures are restricted to IMO-rated tankers, which includes many coated IMO III vessels that operate primarily (or even exclusively) in the CPP trades.
ABC Maritime 10 119,320 23 77 10
Ace Quantum Chemical Tankers 22 433,368 92 8 60,900 9
Ace Tankers 36 707,029 90 10 7
Akar Group 3 50,750 14
Akbasoglu/Trans Ka Tankers 7 55,183 43 57 11
Alliance Maritime 21 285,400 88 12 11
Älvtank 2 35,586 100 18,000 8
Amoretti Armatori 11 148,559 7 82 11 16
Antares Naviera 6 93,705 10
Ardmore Shipping 21 914,548 100 6
Asahi Tanker 8 111,844 11
Aurora Tankers 12 417,000
Bahri 31 1,430,698 11
Bergshav 6 76,483 14
Beisktas Shipping 11 112,591 10
Blue Line Ship Management 4 202,364 100 11
Blystad Group 17 365,987 27 69 4 10
Borealis Maritime 13 144,200 14 44 14 28 13
Bryggen Shipping International 8 342,241 53 3 44 6
Calisa 3 111,496 100 13
Capital Ship Management 27 1,216,784 100 10
Caribe Tankers 6 67,750 100 14
Carl Büttner 7 139,266 78 22 14
Champion Tankers 22 1,039,965 100 15
Chembulk Tankers 25 575,417 100 13
Chemfleet (Yildrim Group) 22 203,198
11
Chemnav Shipmanagement 4 52,000 25 75 11
Chemship 11 162,401 100 8
Christiania Shipping 19 124,214 13
Crystal Nordic (d)
D’Alesio Group
D’Amico International Shipping
Daitoh Trading
De Poli Tankers
Dong-A Tanker
Düzgit Group
Eastern Pacific
Ektank
Elbana di Navigazione
Elcano
Essberger Tankers
Fairfield Chemical Carriers
Finaval
Finbeta
Formosa Plastics Marine
Marine
Furetank Rederi
29,772 100 19
68,609
11
2,131,456 150,000 7
168,480 100 10
125,705 100 14
314,206
41,529
7
9
99,575 100 60,900 9
97,861
51,388
58,368
135,737
677,847
101,026
52,085
11
15
16
6
11
20
665,058 12
91,807
372,438
123,900
14
German Tanker Shipping 5 203,442 13
Gestioni Armatoriali 2 74,570 12
Gothia Tanker Alliance 38 480,333 91 4 5 12
Gotland Tankers 8 390,076 8
Gulf Navigation 6 725,845 10
Hamburger Lloyd 4 32,668 100 12
Hansa Tankers 30 660,998 100 7
Hassel Shipping (Stolt) 8 262,429 2
Heung-A Shipping 19 140,198 95 5 10
Histria Shipmanagement 11 451,000 11
Iino Chemical (a) 40 1,316,884 65 35 11
Iver Ships 6 224,927 100 13
JX Shipping 22 288,023 100 10
Kaptanoglu Shipmanagement 6 69,651 29 71 10
Keoyung Shipping 19 38,929(e) 94 6 18
Knutsen OAS Shipping 5 85,384 20 40 40 12
Koyo Kaiun 15 307,242 68 32 11
KSS Line 9 38,946 10
Latvian Shipping 31 1,555,563 100 8
Lomar Shipping 7 84,715 100 13
Marida Tankers (Womar) 10 131,454 60 40 10
Marinvest 5 184,577 100 15
Marnavi 11 123,533 100 19
Medcare Shipping 2 80,000 13
Mediterranea di Navigazione 7 142,207 7 46 47 16
Millenia Maritime 7 302,000 100 11
MISC Bhd (AET Tankers) 13 385,817 9
Mitsubishi Chemical Logistics 24 29,834
MOL Chemical Tankers 63 1,659,777 97 3 9
MOL Nordic Tankers 20 370,647 85 4 11 9
Motia Cia di Nav 9 346,533 100 13
MT Maritime 25 606,398 100 35,650 9
Naviera Transoceánica 5 195,100 100 17
Navigazione Montanari 18 722,000 100 15
Navig8 Chemicals
2,131,724 392,000 6
Navios Maritime Acquisition 19 873,725 8
Norient Product Pool
3,266,370 100 10
Norstar Shipping 16 251,530 13
North Sea Tankers
NYK Stolt Tankers
Tankers
Odfjell Tankers
Offen Tankers
Tankers
Petronav
Rigel Shipping Canada
Saehan Marine
SCF Group
Sea Pioneer Shipping
85,832 22
10
185,403 15
66,594 100 7
2,556,078 77 20
1 272,000 11
1,114,390 8
261,200 100 10
19,218 100 9
31,533 100 26
102,637 100 19
252,850 100 11
201,500 100 8
134,322 100 13
Seabulk Tankers 9 407,039 100 15
Seatrans Chemical Tankers 12 130,804 97 3(c) 15
Serromah Shipping 10 151,892 100 11
Shanghai Huitong Shipping 6 29,054 11
Shokuyu Tanker (b) 18 146,144 83 17 9
Sinbad Chartering 7 82,577 100 17
Sinochem-Stolt Tankers 9 36,049 11
Sirius Shipping 12 90,211 5 49 11
South End Tanker Management 9 64,187 11
Stainless Tankers (Womar) 30 600,788 100 7
Stella Navigation 7 298,504 17
Stena Bulk 49 3,629,215 6
Stenersen 18 301,872 12
Stolt-Nielsen Inter-Asia Service 3 11,541 18
Stolt-Nielsen Inter-Caribbean Services 6 73,463 14
Stolt-Nielsen Inter-Europe Service 15 79,015 19
Stolt NYK Asia-Pacific Service 13 158,367 11
Stolt Tankers 57 1,917,336 15
Streamline Tankers 8 102,847 100 13
Swede Chem Tankers 6 39,350 68 20 14
Tarbit Shipping 3 55,950 89 14
Tatsumi Marine 20 351,761 100 8
Team Tankers International 49 1,277,959 9 79 11 1 12
Terntank Shipping 10 141,558 50 50 10
Thun Tankers 17 125,739 100 133,496 14
Torlak Shipping 3 21,107 100 11
Tradewind Tankers 3 28,600 100 11
Tune Chemical Tankers 17 214,794 52 48 11
Ultratank (b) 35 1,230,258 9
Uni-Tankers 36 300,214 20 80 11
Unibaltic 8 56,702 48 10
United Arab Chemical Carriers 19 887,379 66 13 21 11
Utkilen Shipping 19 229,408 79,596 17
Varkan Group 3 11,624 33 67 16
Viken Shipping 4 126,422 11
Waterfront Shipping 28 1,143,117 1 99 11
Westfal-Larsen 8 375,645 100 8
Woolim Shipping 24 193,463 6 47 47 11
Yamane Shipping (b) 16 139,965 86 14 8
Zenith Ship Management 31 1,314,908 7
Zodiac Maritime 13 284,660 100 6
2018 data
international fleet only
Teflon coating
now part of Essberger Tankers
BW Group has purchased 54.7 per cent of the shares of Epic Gas and launched an unconditional tender offer to acquire the remaining shares, which is open to 16 April. BW Group intends that Epic Gas will keep its listing on Merkur Market and welcomes shareholders who would like to continue to hold shares in the company.
“BW Group is pleased to acquire this shareholding in Epic Gas with its strong operational platform and quality fleet,” says Andreas Sohmen-Pao, chairman of BW Group. “The transaction represents an opportunity to acquire a well-managed company, led by CEO Charles Maltby, and we look forward to working together to achieve successful growth in the service of our customers.”
Epic Gas reported strong results for the full year 2018, with revenues up 11 per cent year-on-year at $155.5m, adjusted EBITDA up 51 per cent at $44.5m and last year’s net loss of $28.1m easing to a 2018 loss of $2.7m, with the fourth quarter showing a net profit of $0.9m.
“The company is pleased to report a significant year-on-year improvement in business performance with the net profit in the fourth quarter reflecting continued focus on quality, cost control and fleet optimisation as well as the improving underlying market fundamentals,” says Maltby. www.bw-group.com www.epic-gas.com
BW LPG, meanwhile, has reported net revenues of $301m for the full year 2018, down from $335m in 2017, with EBITDA similarly falling from $126m in 2017 to $104m. Timecharter equivalent earnings were down on the previous year, especially in the large gas carrier sector, although the fourth quarter witnessed a strong recovery in VLGC rates.
“With strengthening fundamentals, we expect the freight market to continue to improve going forward,” the company says. “We remain cautiously optimistic for the full year [2019] due to sustained US LPG
production growth and incremental export volumes being added from other key loading areas such as Australia and Canada. However, increased demand for VLGCs from growing US exports will in part be offset by a high level of newbuild deliveries. We maintain our neutral view on Middle Eastern VLGC exports as incremental regional growth is expected to compensate the effects from the re-imposed sanctions on Iran.”
Since the end of 2018, the company has established a Product Services division as part of its aim to provide a low-risk and fully integrated product delivery service to its customers. The division will engage in sourcing LPG and offering it on a cif basis direct to end users.
“The new product services division reflects BW LPG’s ambitions to provide existing and new customers with reliable, integrated LPG delivery services,” says CEO Martin Ackermann. “Whilst LPG shipping remains our core business, we aim to diversify our business offerings, innovate to capture market opportunities, and maximise value for both customers and shareholders”. www.bwlpg.com
Teekay LNG Partners’ fleet of ethylene-capable LPG tankers have joined the Lauritzen Kosan ethylene pool. Together with Lauritzen Kosan’s 11 ethylene carriers, three ethylene carriers supplied by other owners and Teekay LNG’s seven-strong ethylene fleet, the Lauritzen Kosan pool will become one of the leading suppliers of ethylene carrying capacity in the smaller gas carrier size segment with a total of 21 units.
“We are proud to have Teekay LNG, a world leader in energy transportation, joining us in our strategy to service existing and new customers. This is an indication of our strong market position in the gas carrier industry,” says Thomas Wøidemann, CEO of Lauritzen Kosan.
Teekay LNG’s ethylene carriers range in size from 5,500 m3 to 12,000 m3. The three smaller units are also capable of carrying liquid chemicals, while the two 2011-built 12,000-m3 carriers can also handle LNG.
“With Lauritzen Kosan’s close and long-lasting customer relationships, we are confident that we have found the right commercial and operational platform for our fleet of ethylene gas carriers,” says Mark Kremin, president/CEO of Teekay Gas Group Ltd. Teekay’s ethylene carriers were formerly operated in a joint venture with Exmar. Lauritzen Kosan’s parent company, J Lauritzen, has reported negative EBITDA of $6.3m for full-year 2018, a $24.7m improvement on the 2017 figure, with its net result moving into the black in the fourth quarter for the first time in several years. The dry bulk and gas tanker markets continued to improve and the result was within expectations.
“2018 was a year with overall good progress where we improved our financial as well as our operational performance and enjoyed overall market improvements,” says CEO Mads P Zacho, although he adds that “despite considerable result improvements there is still some way to go before we are back where we want to be in financial terms”. www.j-l.com www.teekay.com
StealthGas reported a 6.5 per cent increase in revenues to $164.3m in 2018, although its net
loss for the year worsened from $1.2m in 2017 to $12.3m, as a result of higher voyage costs, an $11.4m impairment loss on vessels held for sale, and higher interest charges.
Board chairman Michael Jolliffe says: “Our performance in the fourth quarter of 2018 did not reflect the strength typically associated with the fourth quarter of the year, which usually benefits from the seasonal factor of winter in the Northern Hemisphere. This year, unfortunately, although the European market was strong, the Asian market followed the opposite course with low rates and subdued timecharter activity. These elements impacted our revenues and prevented us from enjoying a profitable quarter.
“We anticipate, however, that the market sentiment in Asia will gradually turn favourably and our company is well positioned to take advantage of this opportunity,” Jolliffe
continues. “Demand for LPG is strong, the orderbook is very low and timecharter rates for those contracts being fixed have remained at high levels notwithstanding the Asian market slowdown. This leads us to conclude that the solid market fundamentals will eventually lead to a market correction.” www.stealthgas.com
Kirby Corp has acquired Cenac Marine Services’ tank barge fleet, which consists of 63 inland tank barges and 36 tow- and tugboats. Cenac moves petrochemicals, refined products and black oil, including crude oil, residual fuels, feedstocks and lubricants, on the lower Mississippi River, its tributaries, and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway for major oil companies and refineries. The $244m acquisition was financed through additional borrowings.
Following the deal, Kirby Corp now has more than 1,000 inland tank barges in its fleet, along with 321 inland towboats, 53 coastal tank barges and 50 coastal tugboats.
Kirby Corp has also announced net earnings of $78.5m for the full year 2018, down from $313.2m a year earlier. The fall in income was due to financial items, notably higher interest costs following earlier investments and a return to a negative tax position after 2017’s one-off relief. In operational terms, Kirby reports strong demand and high utilisation rates, with rising rates. These favourable market dynamics are expected to continue in 2019, with new petrochemical and pipeline capacity coming onstream.
www.kirbycorp.com
GOODS TRAINING
8 Laurel Road
Hatton Vale, QLD 4341, Australia
T (+61 7) 5411 4415
www.amdg.com.au
Dangerous Goods –Initial Air Acceptance
• May 7-9 – Sydney
• May 13-15 – Brisbane
• May 27-29 – Melbourne
• June 3-5 – Sydney
• June 10-12 – Brisbane
• June 17-19 – Melbourne
Dangerous Goods –Air Transport Recertification
• April 18 – Brisbane
• May 10 – Sydney
• May 16 – Brisbane
• May 30 – Melbourne
• June 6 – Sydney
• June 13 – Brisbane
• June 20 – Melbourne
Dangerous Goods by Sea –Function-Specific, Initial
• April 15-16 – Melbourne
• May 1-2 – Brisbane
• May 13-14 – Sydney
Sully Moors Road
Sully CF64 5RP, UK
T (+44 1446) 743 913
www.barrytrainingservices.co.uk
ADR – Initial
• May 13-17 – Barry
• June 24-28 – Barry ADR – Refresher
• April 29-May 1 – Barry
• June 17-19 – Barry
Redfern House, Browells Lane Feltham, Middlesex TW13 7EP, UK
T (+44 20) 8844 3625
www.bifa.org
Dangerous Goods by Air
• May 3-5 – Newport
• May 13-15 – Altrincham
• May 13-15 – Feltham
• May 20-22 – Coventry
• June 10-12 – Feltham
Dangerous Goods by Air –Revalidation
• May 4-5 – Newport
• May 16-17 – Altrincham
• May 16-17 – Feltham
• May 23-24 – Coventry
• June 13-14 – Feltham
Radioactive Materials by Air
• April 15-16 – Feltham
Radioactive Materials by Air –Revalidation
• April 16 – Feltham
Infectious Substances by Air
• May 14-15 – Watford
Dangerous Goods by Road
• May 20-22 – Feltham
• June 10-12 – Altrincham
• June 24-26 – Coventry
Dangerous Goods by Road –Revalidation
• May 21-22 – Feltham
• June 11-12 – Altrincham
• June 25-26 – Coventry
Dangerous Goods by Sea
• May 23-24 – Feltham
• June 13-14 – Altrincham
• June 27-28 – Coventry
Dangerous Goods Safety Advisor
• June 3-7 – Feltham
• June 3-7 – Manchester
Carriage of Lithium Batteries –All Modes
• May 9-10 – Feltham
Carriage of Lithium Batteries by Air
• May 9 – Feltham
Carriage of Lithium Batteries by Road
• May 10 – Feltham
Carriage of Lithium Batteries by Sea
• May 10 – Feltham
BUREAU OF DANGEROUS GOODS
4 Corporate Drive, Bldg. 4, Suite D Cranbury, NJ 08512, USA
T (+1 609) 860 0300
www.bureaudg.com
IATA Initial Training
• April 17-18 – Dayton, NJ
• April 24-25 – Minneapolis
• May 15-16 – Dayton, NJ
• May 21-22 – Miami
IATA Recurrent Training
• May 8 – Dayton, NJ
• May 30 – Minneapolis
IATA & IMDG Initial Training
• April 17-19 – Dayton, NJ
• April 24-26 – Minneapolis
• May 15-17 – Dayton, NJ
IATA & IMDG Recurrent Training
• May 8-9 – Dayton, NJ
• May 30-31 – Minneapolis
49 CFR Initial Training
• April 15-16 – Dayton, NJ
• April 22-23 – Minneapolis
May 13-14 – Dayton, NJ
49 CFR 1-Day Recurrent Training
May 7 – Dayton, NJ
May 29 – Minneapolis
CFR and IMDG Initial
April 15-19 – Dayton, NJ
April 22-26 – Minneapolis
May 13-17 – Dayton, NJ
CFR and IMDG Recurrent
May 7/9 – Dayton, NJ
May 29/31 – Minneapolis
CFR and IATA Initial
April 15-18 – Dayton, NJ
April 22-25 – Minneapolis
• May 13-16 – Dayton, NJ
CFR and IATA Recurrent
• May 7-8 – Dayton, NJ
May 29-30 – Minneapolis
Recurrent Training
May 9 – Dayton, NJ
May 31 – Minneapolis
General Awareness
May 23 – Miami
CAMEON
PO Box 17345
Edinburgh EH12 1DJ, UK
(+44 131) 334 1929
Goods by Air
July 1-3 – Manchester
Goods by Road –Upgrade
July 4 – Manchester
Goods by Sea –Upgrade
July 5 – Manchester
Goods by Air –Revalidation
• May 17 – Manchester Dangerous Goods by Road and Sea
• May 14-16 – Manchester
Dangerous Goods Safety Adviser
• June 3-7 – Manchester
CARGO TRAINING
INTERNATIONAL
PO Box 176
Shepperton TW17 8WP, UK
T (+44 1932) 769682
P O Box 580026
Houston, TX 77258-0026, USA
T (+1 281) 333 4672
www.cargotraining.com
Dangerous Goods by Air – ICAO (full course)
• April 29-May 1 – Chicago
• May 6-8 – Dallas
• May 13-15 – Heathrow
• May 13-15 – Manchester
• May 20-22 – Birmingham, UK
May 20-22 – Los Angeles
• June 3-5 – Houston
• June 3-5 – Newport
• June 3-5 – Orlando
• June 10-12 – Boston
• June 10-12 – Heathrow
Dangerous Goods by Air –Revalidation
• April 30-May 1 – Chicago
• May 7-8 – Dallas
• May 16-17 – Heathrow
• May 16-17 – Manchester
• May 21-22 – Los Angeles
• May 23-24 – Birmingham, UK
• June 4-5 – Houston
• June 4-5 – Newport
• June 4-5 – Orlando
• June 11-12 – Boston
• June 12-13 – Heathrow
Dangerous Goods by Road – ADR (full course)
• May 20-22 – Heathrow
• June 10-12 – Manchester
• June 24-26 – Birmingham, UK
Dangerous Goods by Road –Revalidation
• May 21-22 – Heathrow
• June 11-12 – Manchester
• June 25-26 – Birmingham, UK Dangerous Goods by Sea (IMDG)
• May 2-3 – Chicago
• May 9-10 – Dallas
• May 23-24 – Heathrow
• May 23-24 – Los Angeles
• July 11-12 – Houston
• June 13-14 – Manchester
IMDG – Sea – Revalidation
• May 3 – Chicago
• May 10 – Dallas
• May 24 – Los Angeles
Lithium Batteries Multimodal
• May 9-10 – Heathrow
Lithium Batteries by Air
• May 9 – Heathrow
Lithium Batteries by Road
• May 10 – Heathrow
Lithium Batteries by Road and Sea
• May 10 – Heathrow
Radioactive Materials by Air (full course)
• April 15-16 – Heathrow
Radioactive Materials by Air –Revalidation
• April 16 – Heathrow
Dangerous Goods Safety Adviser
• June 3-7 – Heathrow
• June 3-7 – Manchester Dangerous Goods Safety Adviser (Refresher)
• June 5-7 – Heathrow
• June 5-7 – Manchester
Suite 907, Silvercord Tower 2
30 Canton Road, Tsim Sha Tsui Kowloon, Hong Kong
T (+852) 2961 4887
www.chemfreight.com.hk
IATA Basic DG Regulations
• April 29-May 3 – Kowloon
• May 6-10 – Kowloon
• May 20-24 – Kowloon
• Jun 10-14 – Kowloon
IATA Refresher DG Regulations
• April 24-26 – Kowloon
• May 15-17 – Kowloon
• May 27-29 – Kowloon
• June 4-6 – Kowloon
• June 17-19 – Kowloon
IATA Dangerous Goods Awareness
• April 23 – Kowloon
• May 14 – Kowloon
• May 30 – Kowloon
• June 3 – Kowloon
DANGEROUS GOODS COUNCIL
PO Box 7325
York, PA 17404, USA
T (+1 717) 848 8840 www.hazshipper.com
49 CFR & International AirCertification
• April 15-17 – Madison
• May 13-15 – Baltimore
• May 21-23 – Raleigh
• June 10-12 – Cleveland
49 CFR – Certification
• April 15-16 – Madison
• May 13-14 – Baltimore
• May 21-22 – Raleigh
• June 10-11 – Cleveland
International Air – Recertification
• April 17 – Madison
• May 15 – Baltimore
• May 23 – Raleigh
• June 12 – Cleveland
Hermes House, St John’s Road
Tunbridge Wells TN4 9UZ, UK
T (+44 1892) 526171
www.fta.co.uk
Dangerous Goods Safety Adviser
• May 13-17 – Leamington Spa
ADR – Initial
• July 1-5 – Leeds
ADR – Refresher
• June 18-20 – Leamington Spa
GLOBAL TRANSPORT TRAINING
54 Norristown Road
Blue Bell, PA 19422, USA
T (+1 215) 283 0983
www.gttstraining.com
Multi-Modal - IATA/IMDG/DOT 49
CFR – Initial
• April 22-26 – Dallas
• April 22-26 – Fairfax
• April 29-May 3 – Cincinnati
• April 29-May 3 – Philadelphia
• May 6-10 – Chicago
• May 13-17 – San Francisco
• May 13-17 – Portland, OR
• May 20-24 – Houston
• June 3-7 – Atlanta
• June 10-14 – Los Angeles
• June 17-21 – Newark
11380 NW 34th Street
Doral, FL 33178, USA
T (+1 305) 471 0561
www.hazmatcom.com
Multimodal General Awareness
• April 16 – Miami
• May 21 – Miami
• June 19 – Miami
IATA Air Initial
• June 4-6 – Miami
IATA Air Recurrent
• May 14 – Miami
• June 11 – Miami
IMDG Ocean Initial
• May 7-8 – Miami
IMDG Ocean Recurrent
• May 15 – Miami
• June 12 – Miami
Lithium Batteries
(IATA/IMDG)
• April 18 – Miami
• May 9 – Miami
• June 18 – Miami
49 CFR Highways
• April 17 – Miami
• May 16 – Miami
• June 13 – Miami
12 Kimball Hill Road
Hudson, NH 03051-3915, USA
T (+1 603) 882 1112
www.hazmateam.com
US DOT 49 CFR Ground Transportation – Initial
• May 14-16 – Hudson
US DOT 49 CFR Ground Transportation –Intermediate Refresher
• May 22-23 – Hudson
US DOT 49 CFR Ground Transportation –Advanced Refresher
• April 30 – Hudson
• June 18 – Hudson DOT Manifesting and Function Specific (49 CFR) Ground Transportation
• May 29 – Hudson International Air Shipping – Initial
• April 24-26 – Hudson
• June 4-6 – Hudson International Air Shipping –Refresher
• June 12-13 – Hudson Water Transportation of Dangerous Goods (IMDG) –Refresher
• May 13 – Hudson Incident Command
• June 26 – Hudson OSHA Emergency Response Refresher
• April 23 – Hudson
• May 17 – Hudson
OSHA Emergency Response Technician – Initial
• May 6-8 – Hudson OSHA/EPA Emergency Response
– Initial
• May 6-10 – Hudson Confined Space Entrant/ Attendant
• April 18 – Hudson
• May 20 – Hudson Confined Space Rescue
• April 19 – Hudson
• May 21 – Hudson
SINGAPORE
146A Changi Road
Singapore 419726
T (+65) 6542 5539
www.haz-mat-training.com
IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (Initial)
• May 6-10 – Singapore
IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (Recurrent)
• May 9-10 – Singapore
• June 26-27 – Singapore
IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (Awareness)
• May 6 – Singapore
IMDG Code Dangerous Goods By Sea
• June 24-25 – Singapore
Chemical Safety Awareness
• May 3 – Singapore
• June 18 – Singapore
SCDF Hazmat Transport Driver
Permit
• May 2 – Singapore
• June 17 – Singapore
2150 Liberty Drive
Niagara Falls, NY 14304, USA
T (+1 888) 442 9628
88 Lindsay Avenue
Dorval, QC H9P 2T8, Canada
T (+1 888) 977 4834
www.thecompliancecenter.com
Shipping Hazardous Materials by Ground in USA: Refresher
• June 11 – St Louis
Shipping Dangerous Goods by Ground in Canada: Initial
• April 24-25 – Toronto
• May 22-23 – Toronto
• May 28-29 – Montreal
• June 19-20 – Toronto
Shipping Dangerous Goods by Ground in Canada: Refresher
• April 24 – Montreal
• May 14 – Toronto
• June 12 – Montreal
Shipping Dangerous Goods by Ground in Canada: 1-Day Initial/ Refresher
• April 24 – Vancouver
• June 12 – Vancouver
Shipping Dangerous Goods by Air: Initial
• April 25 – Vancouver
• June 13 – Vancouver
Shipping Dangerous Goods by Air: Refresher
• May 15 – Toronto
• June 12 – St Louis
• June 13 – Montreal
800 Place Victoria, PO Box 113
Montreal H4Z 1M1
Quebec, Canada.
T (+1 514) 874 0202 www.iata.org/training
Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) – Initial, Category 6
• April 15-19 – Brussels
• May 6-10 – Miami
• May 13-17 – Singapore
• May 13-17 – Geneva
• June 24-28 – Frankfurt
Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) – Recurrent, Category 6
• April 24-26 – Stockholm
• April 30-May 2 – Miami
• May 27-29 – Geneva
• May 28-30 – Seoul
• June 12-14 – Singapore
Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) – Shippers and Packers –Cat 1 and 2
• May 14-16 – Singapore
• June 12-14 – Amsterdam
Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) – Instructor Refresher
• April 15-17 – Switzerland
• May 27-29 – Amsterdam
• June 26-28 – Miami
Professional Skills for DGR
Instructors – Categories 1,2,3,6
• April 29-May 3 – Geneva
• May 6-10 – Seoul
• June 10-14 – Miami
• June 17-21 – Singapore
Instructional Techniques for DGR (for categories 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
• May 6-10 – Singapore
• June 3-7 – Miami
DGR for Auditors and Inspectors
• June 24-28 – Geneva
Shipping Lithium Batteries by Air
• May 2-3 – Seoul
Infectious Substances Transport
• May 29-31 – Singapore
NOVADATA TAB LTD
3 Blackwell Drive
Springwood Industrial Estate Braintree, Essex CM7 2QJ, UK T (+44 1376) 552999 www.novadata.co.uk
ADR Core, Packages
• May 13-16 – Braintree
• June 17-20 – Braintree
ADR Core, Packages & Tanks
• May 4-8 – Braintree
• June 17-21 – Braintree
ADR Tanks Add-On Course
• May 16-17 – Braintree
• June 20-21 – Braintree
Lower William Street
Southampton SO14 5QE, UK
T (+44 23) 8033 1551 www.oilspillresponsetraining.com
Oil Spill Clearance – On-Scene Commander (IMO Level 2)
• April 22-26 – Singapore
• June 3-7 – Southampton
On-Scene Commander – AsiaPacific (IMO Level 2)
• May 14-16 – Ho Chi Minh City
• May 28-30 – Port Moresby
• June 10-12 – Johor Baru Oil Spill Response Management (IMO Level 3)
• May 21-23 – Ghana
• June 17-19 – Singapore Oil Spill Operator – First Responder
• May 9 – Southampton Oil Spill Response Refresher (IMO 1 to 3)
• July 3 – Southampton
PETER EAST ASSOCIATES
504 Centennial Park
Centennial Avenue
Elstree, Herts WD6 3FG, UK
T (+44 20) 8953 6721
www.petereast.com Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Air – Certification
• April 29-May 1 – Southampton
• April 29-May 1 – Dublin
• May 7-9 – Heathrow
• May 13-15 – Luton
• June 3-5 – Heathrow
• June 10-12 – Stansted
• June 17-19 – Southampton
• June 17-19 – Manchester Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Air – Revalidation
• May 10 – Heathrow
• May 16-17 – Luton
• June 6-7 – Heathrow
• June 13-14 – Stansted
• June 20-21 – Manchester
• June 20-21 – Southampton Carriage of Diagnostic & Infectious Substances by Air
• May 14 – Elstree Carriage of Lithium Batteries by Air, Road & Sea
• May 13-14 – Northampton
• June 13-14 – Elstree
GPCA Supply Chain Conference
APRIL 15-17, DUBAI
11th annual meeting of logistics professionals in the Gulf Petrochemicals and Chemicals Association www.gpcasupplychain.com
Chemspec India
APRIL 16-17, MUMBAI
Exhibition for the fine and speciality chemicals sectors, incorporating ChemLogistics India www.chemspecindia.com
NTTC Annual Conference
APRIL 23-25, LAS VEGAS
71st annual conference and exhibition of the National Tank Truck Carriers www.tanktruck.org/meetings/
APRIL 30-MAY 2, BIRMINGHAM
Annual commercial vehicle exhibition https://cvshow.com/
ChemUK 2019
MAY 1-2, HARROGATE
Inaugural supply chain expo and conference for the UK chemical industry www.chemicalukexpo.com/
Flame
MAY 13-15, AMSTERDAM
25th annual conference on natural gas and LNG in Europe https://energy.knect365.com/flame-conference/
MAY 14-15, DRESDEN
Forum on best practice in chemical logistics and supply chain management www.bvl.de/en/fcl
LNG Fuels Summit
MAY 14-16, AMSTERDAM
Fifth conference on small-scale LNG applications www.lngfuelssummit.com
FPS Expo 2019
MAY 15-16, LIVERPOOL
Annual exhibition for the fuel distribution
sector in the UK and Ireland www.fpsshow.co.uk
Hazmat 2019
MAY 15-16, STRATFORD-UPON-AVON
12th annual conference for hazmat specialists https://the-ncec.com/en/emergency-response/ hazmat-event
Intertanko Annual Tanker Event
MAY 20-24, SINGAPORE
Annual congress of the International Association of Independent Tanker Operators www.intertanko.com/events-panels/annualtanker-event
Spillcon
MAY 20-24, PERTH
Triennial Asia-Pacific oil spill prevention and preparedness conference www.spillcon.com/2019/index.html
AFPM Reliability & Maintenance Conference
MAY 21-24, GRAPEVINE, TX
Annual conference on improving reliability in the petrochemical and refining industry www.afpm.org/conferences/
Intermodal Asia
MAY 22-24, SHANGHAI
Sixth annual exhibition for the Asian intermodal sector www.intermodal-asia.com
Hazards29
MAY 22-24, BIRMINGHAM
Conference and exhibition on best practice in chemical and process safety www.icheme.org/events/conferences/ hazards-29
CRAC 2019
MAY 30-31, ARLINGTON, VA
Eleventh annual Chemical Regulatory Annual Conference https://chemlinked.com/events/reach24h-chemicalregulatory-annual-conference-us-seminar
ILTA
JUNE 3-5, HOUSTON
39th annual operating conference and trade show of the International Liquid Terminals Association www.ilta.org
VCA Dangerous Goods Seminar
JUNE 4-5, DAVENTRY
34th annual regulatory update conference www.dft.gov.uk/vca/dangerousgoods/dangerousgoods-seminar.asp
JUNE 4-7, OSLO
Biennial exhibition for the global maritime industry http://nor-shipping.com/
JUNE 4-7, MUNICH
Biennial exhibition for logistics, IT and supply chain management www.transportlogistic.de/index-2.html
JUNE 5-8, BANGKOK
Exhibition for the ASEAN pumps, valves and fittings sector www.pumpsandvalves-asia.com
Petrochemical Supply Chain and Logistics
JUNE 11-12, HOUSTON
Conference on optimising polymer and liquid petrochemical supply chains www.petchem-update.com/petrochemicalsupplychain/
FETSA Conference
JUNE 12, TARRAGONA
Annual event of the Federation of European Tank Storage Associations, prior to AGM www.fetsa.eu
FECC Congress
JUNE 12-14, BARCELONA
Annual meeting of the European Association of Chemical Distributors www.fecc-congress.com
IAFC Hazmat Conference
JUNE 13-16, BALTIMORE
Annual international event for response teams www.iafc.org/events/hazmat-conf
ChemCon Asia 2019
JUNE 17-19, SEOUL
Conference on global chemical regulation chemcon.net/upcoming.shtml
PGLC 2019
JUNE 20-21, MARSEILLE
Inaugural Petrochemical Global Logistics Convention www.pglc.biz
2/1/19 Belgrade, road tanker fuel oil Tank truck with 9,500 gal (36 m³) No 2 heating oil collided with car that failed to yield, overturned, caught central Maine, US fire and exploded; both drivers injured; Route 27 closed during response; car driver cited maine.com
4/1/19 West Wollongong, road tanker gasoline
Fire broke out in cab of road tanker with 36,000 litres gasoline on M1 Princes Motorway; fire spread rapidly; SMH NSW, Australia driver pulled over, attempted to divert traffic; fire spread, consuming successive cargo compartments
4/1/19 Muzaffargarh, road tanker diesel
Thousands of litres of diesel spilled from road tanker that overturned on DG Khan Road, reportedly after The Punjab, Pakistan driver fell asleep; driver hospitalised; area cordoned off to avoid incident Nation
6/1/19 Bartow, freight train hydrogen Several cars of NS freight train derailed, some with chemicals leaking product; several people required WFXG Georgia, US peroxide hospital treatment; vapour cloud identified as hydrogen peroxide; some acid also leaked; 280 people evacuated
7/1/19 Ojo, road tanker gasoline Road tanker overturned while trying to make U-turn on Lagos-Badagry expressway, spilling gasoline; locals Guardian Lagos, Nigeria blamed state of the road for recent spate of accidents; road closed for a day; no fire or injuries reported (Lagos)
8/1/19 Sint-Denijs-Westrem, tank container
Rinnen tank container imploded while being carried on E40; tank had recently been discharged in Oostende; hln.be Belgium no details on previous load; police escorted tank so that haulier could remove it
8/1/19 Detroit, road tanker diesel, Tank truck overturned on I-75 in downtown Detroit, closing road for more than 12 hours; responders had to Detroit Michigan, US gasoline clean up spill, remove remaining cargo from tanker; driver said tank fishtailed, detached from tractor News
9/1/19 Hoosick Falls, freight train propane
Several rail cars derailed; three were propane tank cars, which rolled over; no leaks reported but nearby AP New York, US homes were evacuated as a precaution
11/1/19 Yass, truck aerosols B-double truck carrying mixed load caught fire, which ignited aerosol cans; several explosions heard as fire ABC NSW, Australia spread through truck; fire also spread to nearby grassland; no injuries; traffic on Hume Highway halted
11/1/19 Duka Moja, road tanker gasoline Driver of gasoline tanker lost control on downhill section of Narok-Mai Mahiu road, crashed into two other Daily Narok, Kenya vehicles; tanker rolled over, caught fire; some reports said two in cab were killed; other drivers injured Nation
11/1/19 Calabar, road tanker gasoline Road tanker overturned on Ikom-Calabar highway, spilling gasoline to ditch; locals gathered to collect fuel; Daily Cross River, Nigeria thought that pump brought to help them ignited vapours; police said 12 died in blast, locals reckon 60 or more Trust
11/1/19 Grantham, truck sulphuric Truck carrying 23 tonnes sulphuric acid crashed, overturned on A1 near Colsterworth; road was closed for BBC Lincolnshire, UK acid several hours; driver not injured; police said there were no leaks from containers
12/1/19 Raigad, road tanker propylene Road tanker with 15 t propylene from Jamnagar to Reliance plant at Nagothane reversed into ditch in dark as Times of Maharashtra, India driver parked up for rest; valve damaged, leaking gas; police cordoned off area, halted traffic; fire prevented India
13/1/19 Cambridge, road tanker jet fuel Road tanker with 50,000 litres jet fuel rolled over after collision on Highway 401, spilling fuel to both sides Canadian Ontario, Canada of road; later emerged that much of the spill had reached waterways, causing ice fishing season to be delayed Press
13/1/19 nr Table Grove, freight train isopropyl BNSF train with tank cars with isopropyl alcohol derailed; not clear from reports if there was any leak but Peoria Illinois, US alcohol police closed nearby Route 136; BNSF putting two cars back onto the tracks; cause of derailment unknown PR
14/1/19 Ohakuri, road tanker gasoline McFall road tanker was involved in three-vehicle crash on SH 1; tanker driver seriously hurt; some leak from Rotorua New Zealand tanker reported but no fire; highway was closed for initial response D’y Post
14/1/19 nr Alta, road tanker jet fuel Tank truck ran off I-80, fell 100 metres down embankment; driver killed in crash; 7,000-gal (26.5-m³) jet fuel KCRA California, US cargo spilled from tanker, threatening creek; responders aimed to clean up fuel before rain arrived
14/1/19 Springfield, rail tank cars ammonia Four tank cars – three with anhydrous ammonia, one with ethylene oxide – derailed in BNSF railyard; KTTS Missouri, US hazmat team was called, though no leaks were found; no structural damage to tank cars noted
14/1/19 Tyler, road tanker jet fuel Tank truck with 7,500 gal (28.4 m³) jet fuel overturned on NNE Loop 323; small diesel spill contained, no KLTV Texas, US leak found in tanker; Loop 323 closed during response; cause under investigation
15/1/19 Abakaliki, road tanker gasoline Road tanker ran off road, overturned on Enugu expressway; tanker caught fire, exploded, causing substantial Daily Ebonyi, Nigeria property damage, but no injuries reported Trust
16/1/19 Chelsea, road tanker gasoline Tanker separated from tractor on leaving Gulf Oil terminal; only about 10 gal of 8,000-gal (30.3-m³) load WHDH Massachusetts, US spilled; responders applied foam to prevent vapours collecting, transferred rest of cargo
18/1/19 St James, road tanker LPG Road tanker with cooking gas caught fire on North Coast Highway; driver seriously hurt; area cordoned off; Loop Jamaica fire crews played water on tanker to keep it cool; cause of fire not known Jamaica
19/1/19 nr Padil, road tanker LPG LPG tanker overturned on outskirts of Mangaluru, causing substantial leak; power shut off for several hours; Times of Karnataka, India residents advised to evacuate; driver suffered minor injuries; cause not known but area has regular accidents India
20/1/19 Jacksonville, freight train ethanol
Eight cars of SCX ethanol train derailed near Anheuser-Busch plant; two tank cars fell into Cedar Creek; news4jax Florida, US no leaks found; cargo had to be transferred before cars could be craned back onto tracks
21/1/19 Kanpur, road tanker mustard oil Road tanker collided with microvan, overturned, spilling hundreds of litres of mustard oil (widely used in Times of UP, India Indian cooking); locals rushed to collect the oil before being chased off by police; driver absconded India
21/1/19 Hub, Balochistan, road tanker oil
Speeding bus collided with oil tanker in Bela Cross area; collision caused fire on both vehicles; 13 people Xinhua Pakistan killed on the spot, another 13 died later of burn injuries, many others badly injured
21/1/19 nr Laramie, road tanker diesel Pilot Travel Centre truck with two tanker trailers was rear-ended by semi-truck on I-80, causing pup tank to Laramie Wyoming, US leak some 1,500 gal (5,700 litres) diesel; no fire; remaining cargo transferred; westbound lanes closed Live
22/1/19 Warri, road tankers fuels
Welding work on tanker barrel with fuel residue caused fire that spread to at least nine other tankers parked The Delta, Nigeria nearby, some waiting to be loaded, others with fuel; fire crews criticised for slow response Nation
25/1/19 Mukhonje, road tanker diesel Road tanker with diesel for Uganda ran off road, hit bus on Eldoret-Webuye highway; three killed in crash; Standard Kenya spilling fuel ignited, spread to buildings, another fuel tanker, killing five more
25/1/19 Benin, road tanker diesel Road tanker overturned trying to avoid oncoming vehicle in wrong lane; spilling diesel ignited; tanker driver Vanguard Edo, Nigeria was trapped in cab, died; several other vehicles burned; no other injuries mentioned
25/1/19 Jasenovik, freight train ammonia
All residents of village evacuated to Nis after earlier derailment, as responders emptied two ammonia tank Reuters Serbia cars prior to righting them on the track; no injuries reported
27/1/19 Hutchins, road tanker fuel Tank truck with 8,500 gal (32 m³) unspecified fuel caught fire on I-45, cause unclear; highway closed in both NBC Texas, US directions; fire crews allowed blaze to burn itself out; driver unhurt
28/1/19 Webuye, road tanker sulphuric Road tanker crashed, burst into flames at Kaburengo interchange on Eldoret-Webuye highway; two in tanker The Star Kenya acid cab were killed; cause of crash not known (Nairobi)
28/1/19 nr Ennis, road tanker asphalt Tank truck with molten asphalt collided with semi-truck on Highway 287, causing fire that consumed both The Montana, US vehicles; drivers not badly hurt; site of accident is a well-known blackspot Madisonian
30/1/19 Lagos, road tanker gasoline Road tanker ran off Mile 2/Badagry Expressway, overturned; spilling gasoline; locals arrived to collect fuel Guardian Nigeria but tanker exploded; two people known to have been killed; substantial property damage (Lagos)
31/1/19 Winnipeg, road tanker gasoline Two trucks, one a double-tanker with 56 m³ gasoline, collided at Deacon’s Corner; one tanker ruptured, Steinbach Manitoba, Canada spilling large volume of fuel; police closed highway and nearby rail line, evacuated businesses Online
Date Location Plant type Substance Details Source
3/1/19 Milford Haven, fuel oil Up to 10,000 litres HFO leaked from jetty line at Valero refinery to harbour waters; several agencies involved Milford Pembrokeshire, UK in containment, cleanup; Valero ordered to suspend use of two lines pending investigation, repairs Mercury
4/1/19 Atlantic Ocean Yantian unknown Fire broke out in containers on 7,500-teu boxship some 650 nm east of Canada; all crew rescued; vessel Maritime Express headed for Bahamas with tug escort; source of fire not yet known, suspected to be undeclared dangerous goods Executive
6/1/19 Hong Kong, Maersk bunkers “Massive” spill during bunkering of containership (4,340 teu, 2002) by tanker Carlung moored alongside at FleetMon China Gateshead Kwai Tsing container terminal; photos showed oil spilling from boxship’s deck; cause not yet established
8/1/19 Hong Kong, Aulac Product tanker (17,500 dwt, 2010), arriving in ballast to bunker at Lamma Island anchorage, suffered FleetMon China Fortune explosion in cargo tank, possibly during cleaning; one killed, two missing; tanker listing, badly damaged
12/1/19 Dongying, No 5 SJ Gas LPG On arrival from Korea with 1,850 t LPG, crew found faulty valve; tanker moved to anchorage, then further FleetMon Shandong, China off, away from other tankers, for repairs; all crew remained on board
13/1/19 Singapore Strait Antea unknown Pipelaying vessel Star Centurion collided with product tanker (40,000 dwt, 2002) near Bintan Island; crew of FleetMon pipelayer rescued before it sank; tanker damaged; not clear from reports if it was in cargo at the time
21/1/19 nr Cuxhaven, Oriental chemicals
Product/chemical tanker (12,500 dwt, 2009), with 9,000 t unspecified chemicals, grounded in Elbe estuary DW Germany Nadeshiko out of fairway, possibly due to mechanical failure; tanker freed on rising tide; no leaks found
21/1/19 Kerch Strait, Maestro, LPG Fire broke out during STS transfer of LPG between two elderly Tanzania-registered gas ships; at least 14 FleetMon Black Sea Candy crew were killed, others missing; operation involved illegal trade in Crimean gas; fire burned till 28 February
30/1/19 Singapore Strait Sea Frontier unknown Product tanker (5,000 dwt, 1989), in cargo, struck rock off Tanjung Penyusop, Malaysia while approaching FleetMon port; hull breached, vessel took on water; no pollution reported
31/1/19 off Vung Ro, APL containers Fire broke out in container bay on containership (9,300 teu, 2013) en route from Shenzhen to Singapore; Maritime Vietnam Vancouver all crew evacuated after heading to sheltered water to anchor; fire burned for nearly two weeks Executive
3/1/19 Camanche, chemical hydrochloric Hydrochloric acid spilled at Hawkins Chemical plant when connector failed during delivery from rail tank car; KWQC Iowa, US plant acid Hawkins personnel stopped leak, contained 1,500-gal (5.6-m³) spill; no injuries reported
4/1/18 Rio Acima, fireworks fireworks
One worker seriously hurt by explosion in one of three sheds at fireworks factory; second blast in another shed; Hoje em MG, Brazil factory fire crews brought resulting blaze under control; three people on site at the time Dia
4/1/19 Melaka, technology nitric acid
Some 500 litres nitric acid spilled during transfer at computer component unit in Cheng technology park; acid Bernama Malacca, Malaysia park neutralised with soda ash, cleaned up by hazmat unit; no injuries reported
5/1/19 Geismar, pipeline LNG Enterprise Products reported leak of LNG (possibly NGL) from pipeline; vapours restricted to facility; nearby WAFB Louisiana, US terminal facilities closed as a precaution; no injuries reported, no threat to the public
8/1/19 Oxford, ammunition ammunition
Seven workers injured by explosion at Olin Winchester factory; no off-site impact; workers said to be wearing WMC Mississippi, US factory proper safety gear, which likely prevented worse injuries; factory had prior OSHA violations
10/1/19 McPherson, chemical chemicals
Fire reported at Chemstar Products plant, which makes drilling mud from corn; people living nearby reported KWCH Kansas, US plant series of explosions; no injuries reported in fire; responders on site to monitor hot spots
11/1/19 Aden, oil refinery oil Explosion, fire in oil storage tank at refinery, later spread through lines to a second tank; several injuries; Al Arabiya Yemen gunfire in area prior to initial explosion and not clear if this was the cause
13/1/19 Novopavlovsk, oil refinery oil Five workers received burn injuries when fire broke out in storage tank at Shigl oil refinery; authorities said TASS Stavropol, Russia they knew cause of incident but did not give details; fire was extinguished in a few hours
14/1/19 Bang Sao Thong, filling LNG
Three people injured by explosion at filling station while fuelling car with LNG; car destroyed, station badly The S Prakan, Thailand station damaged by blast; police investigating cause Nation
14/1/19 Milford, metal etching hydrofluoric
Five people needed hospital treatment after hydrofluoric acid spill at PEI etching company; spill happened CBS Massachusetts, US plant acid when worker lost control of 55-gal drum; workers followed training to neutralise spill
16/1/19 Chittagong, oil depot waste oil Major fire at oil depot, used to store waste oil from ships being scrapped; blaze brought under control in two Dhaka Bangladesh hours; nearby businesses also damaged; no word on injuries or cause Tribune
16/1/19 St Lucy, distillery alcohol Fire broke out in 300,000-gal (1,140-m³) storage tank half-full with alcohol at Mount Gay rum distillery; Drinks Barbados fire crews ruptured tank roof so they could apply foam to fire; maintenance work under way nearby at the time Business
16/1/19 Kingisepp, chemical potassium Four workers injured by powerful explosion at Polyplast plant; investigators believe sparks from grinder RFE Leningrad, Russia plant nitrate ignited saltpetre in drum nearby; two-storey building destroyed by blast
17/1/19 Corunna, chemical benzene NOVA Chemicals reported leak at its Corunna plant; leak said to be contained on-site; local authorities said Blackburn Ontario, Canada plant leak involved benzene; plant personnel investigating News
17/1/19 Carolina Beach, filling kerosene About 500 gal (1,900 litres) kerosene spilled during delivery at filling station, more than 200 gal entering WECT N Carolina, US station storm drains to yacht basin; booms, skimmers deployed; 9,000 gal oily water recovered
18/1/19 Tlahuelilpan, pipeline gasoline Explosion on pipeline after illegal tap to steal gasoline killed at least 73 people; 46 more died in hospital; Reuters Hidalgo, Mexico reports spoke of ‘festival atmosphere’ as locals collected free fuel, as there was none at filling stations
21/1/19 Ede Obuk, gas plant acetylene
Four people killed by explosion in “gas plant” (possibly cylinder filling unit) after working hours; several Xinhua Akwa Ibom, Nigeria more injured; witnesses said oxygen and acetylene cylinders “suddenly exploded”
21/1/19 Summerfield pipeline natural gas
One person hurt, three homes damaged by explosion on Enbridge gas line; residents evacuated; fire contained WTAP Ohio, US after line was isolated; PHMSA investigation underway
22/1/19 Vitrolles, oil depot waste oil Fire broke out at Provence Oil facility in holding tank with various residual fuels; fire crews prevented blaze La B-du-Rhône, France from spreading to nearby properties but stayed on site to monitor hot spot on tank, thought to be source Provence
23/1/19 Trainer, energy plant hydrofluoric Five contractors hospitalised after hose broke at Monroe Energy plant, releasing vapours containing some Delaware Pennsylvania, US acid hydrofluoric acid; one-site response team isolated leak News J’l
26/1/19 Zebbug, fireworks waste
Two workers seriously injured by explosion during burning of pyrotechnic waste outside San Guzepp Newsbook Malta factory fireworks factory; Civil Protection Dept on site; facility is properly licensed
29/1/19 Enid, oil well crude oil
“Thousands of gallons” of crude oil leaks from open valve on tank at well operated by Great Salt Plains; AP Oklahoma, US spill put at 750 bbl, much of which reached nearby creek; slick extended 8 km downstream
29/1/19 Liberty county, oil well crude oil
Oilfield tank caught fire, possibly due to static electricity; fire crews prevented blaze from reaching second KTRK Texas, US tank on site; owner said 300 bbl oil was lost in fire; shelter-in-place ordered; TRC investigating
3/2/19 Houston, airport jet fuel
At least 64,000 gal (240 m³) fuel oil spilled from Southwest Airlines’ tank farm at Hobby Airport, said to be KPRC Texas, US due to unspecified equipment malfunction; airport activities not affected
3/2/19 Oregon, oil refinery toluene
Nearby residents evacuated after fire broke out at Toledo Refinery; thought that two small explosions sparked WTVG Ohio, US fire but root cause as yet unknown; fire contained to on-site pipeline with toluene
YANTIAN EXPRESS, APL Vancouver, Grande America, ER Kobe – four ships with one thing in common: each of them suffered a fire in a container while underway during the first three months of 2019. While it is not yet known in each case what caused these fires, and there are scenarios in which they may have been caused by factors such as overexuberant fumigation or the off-gassing of solvents or adhesives used in the manufacture of the goods within the containers, it is most likely that the fires started in containers with undeclared or mis-declared dangerous goods.
According to the TT Club, there is on average one major containership fire every 60 days; it also says that, across the intermodal spectrum as a whole, two-thirds of incidents related to cargo damage can be attributed to poor practice in the overall packing process; that is not just
in securing but also in cargo identification, declaration, documentation and effective data transfer. These incidents are calculated to cost insurers in excess of $500m a year – and with the increasing size of containerships there is the fear that a single major event could cost the sector as much as $2bn.
Peregrine Storrs-Fox, risk management director at the TT Club, is one of those spearheading the new Cargo Integrity initiative. “We are endeavouring to focus all direct and indirect stakeholders on recognising and doing the right thing,” he says. “One particularly critical aspect of this is the correct declaration and handling of dangerous goods.”
But it is not simply a matter of getting the basics right when handling dangerous goods
– a holistic view is needed if industry is to reconcile the threats to life, property and the environment with the characteristics that make the container shipping business such a successful motor of world trade.
The physical integrity of the shipping container is the primary reason why it has such a dominant position in transporting general cargo around the world. What many called a revolution in global trade was initiated in the late 1950s and ‘60s when the introduction of metal containers, later standardised to twenty and forty feet in length, challenged the traditional ‘break bulk’ methods of cargo handling.
At once these relatively simple metal boxes improved security, speeded up port operations and ship turnaround times and, crucially, allowed the integrity of the load to be maintained intact from the shipper’s premises to those of the consignee, utilising modes of land transport as well as ships.
“Some sixty years on we face a lack of a quite different sort of integrity – the integrity of knowledge, information flow and data transfer, as well as the correct care for the cargo inside the container,” Storrs-Fox says.
“The speed of cargo transport around the world and the complexity of supply chains,
both in terms of geographical diversity and the myriad ‘hands’ through which cargo may pass, is the container’s achievement but also a cause of considerable risk.”
In the maritime segment of global supply chains, sources suggest that container fires may occur on a weekly basis and statistics indicate there is a major container cargo fire at sea roughly every 60 days. There have been several well publicised shipboard explosions and fires involving laden containers over the past few years. The tragedies of MSC Flaminia in July 2012 and Maersk Honam in March 2018 both sadly cost multiple lives, likely resulting in insured losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars and overall economic loss to the industry of multiples of the insured element.
As the size of containerships increases, so does the potential risk and consequence of a large explosion or fire incident. Despite regulatory and technical advances, there is little doubt that the capability to respond to a cargo-related fire at sea has not progressed in proportion to ship capacities and the variety of commodities being carried.
This burden of loss has been tolerated in part because fragmentation in each stakeholder segment means that most entities bear a portion of their own losses within risk appetite, but also because the global intermodal supply chain has developed complex practices, some of which detract from safety and certainty of outcome.
All types of cargo can be mishandled. However, wrongly classified, declared or labelled dangerous goods are seen as the primary hazard. The representative body of cargo handling and container terminal operators, ICHCA International, has extrapolated statistical evidence of the extent of the problem. It calculates that of an estimated 60 million packed containers moved around the globe each year, 10 per cent are
declared to contain dangerous goods; that is 6 million containers that need varying degrees of special handling, positioning in terminals and stowage onboard ships.
Information from government inspections, which are biased towards declared dangerous goods shipments, suggests that more than 20 per cent are poorly packed or incorrectly identified in some way. That ratio converts to 1.3 million potentially unstable declared dangerous goods loads per year.
It is more challenging to estimate the amount of dangerous goods cargo that goes undeclared. An initiative by HapagLloyd and more lately by IBM has seen the development of a detection system, Cargo Patrol, which attempts to identify cargoes that may be undeclared dangerous goods at the time a shipper books the move with a shipping line, leading to more detailed investigation before acceptance.
From the ‘potential hits’ thrown up by the system it would seem that between 2 and 5 per cent transpire to be more than likely undeclared dangerous goods. Extrapolating these findings across the total annual global container trade, it might be reasonable to estimate that there are some 150,000 ticking container time-bombs each year carrying potentially volatile misdeclared cargo.
The Cargo Patrol initiative and the efforts of IBM to make it accessible to all lines is
an example of a communal approach to improving safety surrounding the transport of containers both on land and at sea. This sort of cooperation among the shipping lines and others (including TT Club) began some seven years ago with the founding by five of the top liner operators of an organisation aiming to capture key incident data in order to provide an early warning of worrying trends, whether relating to cargoes that display dangerous characteristics or unsafe practices in the container supply chain.
The Cargo Incident Notification System or CINS (www.cinsnet.com) now has a membership that includes 18 liner operators, representing more than 70 per cent of container slot capacity.
CINS facilitates the capture by liner operators of structured key causal information in connection with cargo and container related incidents. This information capture explicitly excludes any shipper data in order to preclude any anti-trust concerns.
The objective of the organisation is to highlight the risks posed by certain cargoes and/or packing failures in order to improve safety through the supply chain and specifically onboard ships. The aspiration is that all significant incidents caused by the cargo itself or the container equipment leading to injury or loss of life, environmental concerns, or damage to cargo and assets should be reported, together with investigation conclusions that identify causation. »
The need for more transparency is not limited to shipping lines; many other actors in the supply chain, most notably the shippers and forwarders who are responsible for packing the containers and the crucial initial declarations of what they contain, as well as ports and terminals, must become more knowledgeable about safety procedures and more vigilant in minimising errors.
Procedures governing dangerous goods handling around the world, for instance, are complex. Each carrier has its own restrictions in relation to house policies, shipowner policies, ship constraints and restrictions applied at ports/terminals of loading, transit, transhipment and discharge. The complexity and lack of standardisation can be bewildering even to the most experienced shipping clerk or warehouse operative, and exacerbates the possibility for error or failure to update. It is also intensely inefficient and hugely burdensome.
In order to help clarify the situation, Exis Technologies, with the support of TT Club and its sister insurance mutual, the UK P&I Club, has developed a portal integrating information on such restrictions. The Hazcheck Restrictions Portal (http:// hazcheck.existec.com/hazcheck-systems/
hazcheck-restrictions) is designed to simplify the end-to-end management of DG booking processes, taking account of port, terminal carrier, ship and partner line restrictions.
Once more cooperation is urged; ports/ terminals and liner operators can upload their DG handling policies and restrictions into the portal free of charge, allowing their use by shippers, forwarders and others involved in the movement of such goods.
There are two internationally recognised codes, produced by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), that guide, instruct and govern the safe transport of cargoes in containers; the mandatory International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code and the Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTU Code).
Under the terms of the IMDG Code it is mandatory for all shore-based personnel involved in dangerous goods transport by sea to have training. While there are numerous national trade bodies providing appropriate and compliant dangerous goods courses, the challenge remains to reach those who currently slip through the net.
IMDG clarifies the population of shorebased personnel as all who are involved in the shipment of dangerous goods and mandates that they receive training “commensurate with their responsibilities” (before they undertake them). Clearly this definition encompasses a large group of people not immediately identified with the maritime industry, but connected by reason of initiating or packing an intermodal consignment.
Once more, the need to deliver the message of cargo integrity throughout the supply chain is clearly evidenced. For its part, TT Club has joined forces with UK P&I Club to update and revise the Book it right and pack it tight publication, which provides a thorough introduction and guidance on the provisions of the IMDG Code. This is freely available as a PDF at www.ttclub.com/fileadmin/uploads/ tt-club/Documents/UK-TT_BIRPIT_2018_ secured.pdf.
However, apart from reiterating the need for training and awareness, TT Club emphasises that trust through the supply chain requires more. Due to the complexity of the international supply chain, the entity identified as the ‘consignor’ on the dangerous goods document may not have direct or
physical control over key elements of the end-to-end process, but needs to be aware that legal liability rests with the ‘consignor’ and ensure that arrangements are in place to be in compliance with these international and national regulations.
Not all ‘consignors’ will be conversant with such responsibilities, with the result that counterparties should take additional actions. Thus, there are three steps inherent in achieving compliance and assurance throughout the supply chain:
1. Ensure that your own relevant employees are competent;
2. Inform all your customers, contractors and suppliers of their obligations to train to an appropriate level of competence; and
3. Obtain documentary evidence that all relevant employees of your customers, contractors and suppliers are trained to an appropriate level of competence.
While training to achieve ‘competence’ –or the ability to do a job properly – is critical and required by law, it needs to be followed through. This means that the training records not only should be maintained but also be available. It is clear that the system has yet to work effectively.
The importance of carrying out due diligence was set out in relation to the CTU Code in the IMO Circular MSC.1/Circ.1531. Interestingly, that document envisages the checks being addressed to those who seek to select a “provider of CTU-related services”. In an age where looking counter-parties in the eye is rare, this provides a good model in both directions; it is as important for the ‘provider’ (forwarder, logistics operator or carrier) to ‘know your customer’ as for the customer to seek assurance in relation to the contractor. Reality triggers should be applied to consider the risk of dangerous goods. A quick internet search can identify key characteristics of a shipper or consignor – and consignee. A chemical factory is more than likely to need to demonstrate compliance with the training requirement. Equally, recognise that a garden centre consignee may just as validly seek shipment of pesticides or fertilisers as tools and wheelbarrows.
The CTU Code is now a non-mandatory Code of Practice adopted by the IMO. While certain jurisdictions may or may not implement the code into national legislation, the entire freight industry must recognise that this detailed guidance may now be used in any litigation as a demonstration of good industry practice. The TT Club cannot stress enough that all parties need to become familiar with the contents and develop ways to implement and encourage compliance with the CTU Code.
Having repeatedly drawn attention to the consequences of inappropriate load distribution and badly secured cargo within CTUs (including shipping containers), including bodily injury, an increased level of training of those employed by shippers, consolidators, warehouses and depots to pack containers and other transport units is now essential. To help meet this need, TT Club commissioned Exis Technologies to develop e-learning training courses for the transport industry, resulting in the launch of CTUpack e-learning™ (www.ctupack.com).
While the IMDG Code is mandatory and all IMO member states are required to incorporate its requirements in national law, enforcement is little known and inspections (on which evidence of transgression is reliant) are few and far between.
On analysing reports submitted to IMO in the past, TT Club has established that the number of member states reporting on their inspections, in comparison with those in membership of IMO, has always been less
than 10 per cent and currently stands at about 2.5 per cent; on average only 4 or 5 of the 170 member states regularly report. Of the inspections that are carried out as many as 75 per cent are usually in the US.
This is a woefully low rate of inspection and next to useless in order to enforce the regulations, derive change requirements or provide evidence of frequent transgressors in terms of shippers and commodities.
TT Club, working with industry partners, will continue to put pressure on UN agencies, governments and the full range of stakeholders in the intermodal supply chain, recommending changes to improve safety, and identify practices and behaviours that can undermine certainty of outcome for trade in general and present increased risk for people, ships and the environment.
It is clear that the effectiveness of TT Club’s call for cargo integrity must take a broad approach, not relying on the power of regulation or the vigilance and discipline of carriers or port operators, but carrying the safety message far and wide, including engaging with entities involved in fiscal, health, security and anti-trust regulation, and embracing technical innovations that can assist in monitoring and condition reporting. Those involved in inspections, surveys and advice to the packing industry globally are thus key potential agents of the significant culture change that is required. HCB
This article is based in part on a contribution by the TT Club to the International Institute of Marine Surveying’s (IIMS) newsletter, The Report.
THE FIRE ABOARD the containership MSC Flaminia in the Atlantic Ocean in July 2012 has had an ongoing impact on the transport of dangerous goods, and polymerising substances in particular. The seat of the fire was shown to be in or near tank containers with divinyl benzene (DVB), which has spontaneously polymerised, apparently after being held for too long in hot ambient conditions prior to loading, and then being stowed next to heated cargo on the ship.It has not been proven that this was the cause of the initial fire but it would certainly have contributed to its ferocity.
The court case assigned liability to the shipper and the NVOCC, in this case the tank container operator; however, appeals continue.
Given the severity of the fire, the financial losses incurred, and the loss of life involved
in the MSC Flaminia incident, regulators have taken steps to address what are apparently increasing problems involved in the transport of polymerising substances and introduced new UN numbers so as to make their carriage more transparent, especially to carriers.
More than 55 products are covered by the new provisions, so there is widespread applicability. Much attention has been focused on their implementation in the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code and in particular the declaration and stowage of such products aboard containerships.
There is, however, concern – particularly among NVOCCs – that the requirements in the IMDG Code are not easy to comply with in practice. While all shippers should be able to
properly classify and declare their goods and provide that information to the NVOCC, the new provisions for polymerising substances involve the transmission of details of any inhibitors used to stabilise the cargo along the supply chain.
In the modern maritime supply chain, increasing levels of computerisation have made the transmission of information along the chain easier; however, at the same time, they have eroded the need for specialist technical knowledge within the supply chain: (perhaps most particularly among NVOCCs and freight forwarders) and have also placed limits on the information itself. The details required by the IMDG Code do not fit easily with those computerised systems and it is difficult to see how the transmission of critical information along the chain can be assured.
In order to provide some clarity on the new issues surrounding polymerising substances, the International Tank Container Organisation (ITCO) has drawn up a guidance note for its members, giving advice on the use of tank containers for the transport of polymerising substances that are chemically stabilised through the use of inhibitors.
The key to safe transport of polymerising substances is found in special provision 386 in the IMDG Code. When substances are stabilised by temperature control, SP 386 points to section 7.3.7 of the Code. Transport under chemical stabilisation is a more complex matter, however; SP 386 requires that the level of stabilisation within the substance should be sufficient to prevent dangerous polymerisation in a portable tank at a bulk mean temperature of 45°C, through to the end destination.
This means that the tank container operator should require the “person offering the tank for transport” (as defined in the IMDG Code) to confirm in writing all the relevant information and the required actions to be carried out by the tank operator. This could appear in section 9 of the dangerous goods declaration, ‘additional handling information’, or if appropriate, an attached document. The required information should cover:
• Confirmation that the substance is sufficiently stabilised to prevent dangerous polymerisation at a bulk mean temperature of 45°C in accordance with IMDG Code SP 386 for the duration of transport event
• The temperature of the substance at the time and date of filling the tank
• Anticipated ambient temperatures from the time of filling, during transport and until discharge (including any period prior to loading aboard ship)
• Contingency provisions for any delays or events that might occur during the transport
• Confirmation that no temperature control is required to be fitted to the tank or, if temperature control is required, the specification of cooling requirement and the tank type used.
The MSC Flaminia case has established that the NVOCC has a responsibility to have this information available and to make sure
that the carrier is also provided with it. The methodology by which that transfer of information happens is not defined in the IMDG Code and current EDI systems are not designed to handle it. Some changes will have to be made if the NVOCC’s obligations are to be met.
There is the potential for confusion over the identity of the ‘operator’; this is currently not closely defined in the IMDG Code (nor in other regulations) and the identity of the portable tank operator is generally taken to be the owner. Given that such a large proportion of the tank container fleet is actually owned by leasing companies, that definition does not reflect operation in practice. Moves are underway to change the definition at UN level.
The ITCO guidance document is currently only available, via its website, to members; it is likely that it will be revised, as the provisions in the IMDG Code only become mandatory on 1 January 2020. HCB
of Classification and Labelling (GHS) that followed immediately afterwards.
The Sub-committee is not keen on starting new business at the final session of the biennium, preferring to spend its time reviewing decisions already taken and finalising outstanding issues. Nevertheless, there was some new business put before the experts, all of which was knocked back for further consideration or for deliberation in another forum.
THE UN SUB-COMMITTEE of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) held its 54th session – the fourth and final session of the 2017/18 biennium – this past 26 November to 4 December in Geneva. It was chaired by Duane Pfund (US) with Claude Pfauvadel as vice-chair.
The meeting was attended by experts from 18 countries, observers from Ireland, Slovakia and Turkey, and representatives of the EU, the Intergovernmental Organisation for
International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and 32 non-governmental organisations.
The main task of the Sub-committee was to agree the final list of amendments that will appear in the 21st revised edition of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods – the ‘Model Regulations’ or ‘Orange Book’ – for formal adoption at the session of the UN Committee of Experts on TDG and the Globally Harmonised System
The first item on the agenda was a review of the draft amendments adopted at the three previous sessions. Those that related specifically to explosives or to the Manual of Tests and Criteria were referred to the Working Group on Explosives, while the other amendments were confirmed by the plenary meeting, with some exceptions.
Firstly, the planned amendment to 1.1.1.2(c) relating to lithium battery-powered cargo tracking devices and data loggers, which had been left in square brackets pending a final decision, was deleted, as the topic was the
subject of a broader proposal that appeared later in the session.
The decision taken at the December 2017 session to add a packing group I entry for UN 1390 alkali metal amides was also rescinded on the basis of test data provided by the US.
The new packing instructions P622 and LP622, applicable to UN 3549, were adopted but with some additional changes following an oral presentation by FAO. That clarified that the instructions apply not simply to material of UN 3549 but more specifically “to waste of UN 3549 transported for disposal”.
The planned amendments to 7.1.5.4.5(b) to (e), adopted on the basis of earlier discussions by the UN ECE Working Party on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (WP15), were also dropped. Intersessional discussions determined that the text that had been provisionally adopted for the UN Model Regulations might lead to misinterpretation; this fact was to be brought to WP15’s attention, after which the issue might return to the TDG Sub-committee.
The secretariat had also provided a consolidated list of corrections to the 20th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations, which would be circulated as an official corrigendum; experts were asked to communicate any further corrections so that they could be included.
The Working Group on Explosives met from 26 to 30 November parallel to plenary under the chairmanship of Ed de Jong (Netherlands). The Working Group was, though, unable to reach consensus on many of the issues facing it; these were sent back to plenary for further consideration.
The Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) returned to the search for a more appropriate test than the Koenen Test (UN Test 8(c)) for evaluating certain emulsions for classification under UN 3375 ammonium nitrate emulsion or suspension or gel. After lengthy investigation and discussion, the minimum burning pressure (MBP) test, already in use by a number of ammonium nitrate manufacturers for internal uses, had been identified; however, proposals at earlier sessions for its inclusion had failed to reach consensus.
Although the Working Group had not agreed amendments on this topic, it had prepared changes to the proposals in the IME paper for discussion in plenary. It was finally agreed to include the MBP test as UN Test 8(e), to be applied to substances that fail Test 8(c). This will involve several amendments in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, including to Figure 10.4 and Sections 18.1, 18.2 and 18.6.1.4, and a new Section 18.8 describing the test. Other changes relevant to GHS would be brought to the attention of the GHS Sub-committee.
Another IME paper returned to the issue of ammonium nitrate assigned to UN 0222, Division 1.1D; this product is not in commercial manufacture but during earlier discussions several delegates expressed their wish to retain the entry as it is useful for dealing with contaminated product. The Working Group had agreed that it was also useful for special cases and for fertilisers that fail test series 2.
IME, rather than pressing its request for UN 0222 to be deleted, now took a different tack, maintaining that the presence of this entry can cause misunderstanding and incorrect application. It proposed a revision to the text of special provision 370, which applies only to UN 0222. The Working Group recommended
that the Sub-committee adopt the revision, which it did. It involves the amendment of the first sentence of SP 370 to read: “This entry only applies to ammonium nitrate that meets one of the following criteria:”. The two criteria that follow will be linked with “or” rather than “and”, as at present. And a new paragraph is added after the indents: This entry shall not be used for ammonium nitrate for which a proper shipping name already exists in the Dangerous Goods List of Chapter 3.2 including ammonium nitrate mixed with fuel oil (ANFO) or any of the commercial grades of ammonium nitrate.
The US returned to its proposal to allow certain pyrotechnic articles of UN 0431 to use the default fireworks classification table. Discussion at the previous session had raised concerns over the proposed limitation to articles “intended for professional use only”; the revised US proposal was more specific. Further concerns were now expressed about a precedent being set for extending the applicability of the table. In the end, however, and after further clarification, the amendment to 2.1.3.5.2 was adopted. This involved the addition, after “or 0336” in the first sentence of that paragraph, of “, and articles to UN 0431 for those used for theatrical effects meeting the definition for article type and »
1.4G specification in the default fireworks classification table in 2.1.3.5.5”.
The UK sought to sort out the allocation of large packing instruction LP101; discussions at earlier sessions it was felt that LP101 was only appropriate for items that could have PP67 or L1 applied to them but, after further discussions, the UK had pressed its point. The Sub-committee now agreed to add “LP101” under “P130” in column (8) of the Dangerous Goods List for UN Nos 0005, 0007, 0012, 0014, 0033, 0037, 0136, 0167, 0180, 0238, 0240, 0242, 0279, 0291, 0294, 0295, 0324, 0326, 0327, 0330, 0338, 0339, 0348, 0369, 0371, 0413, 0414, 0417, 0426, 0427, 0453, 0457, 0458, 0459 and 0460.
Another paper on a similar theme from the UK fared less well. This was based on the fact that PP67 (in P130) and L1 (in LP101) apply the same provisions to the same articles. The UK felt there is a problem insofar as there is no definition of “large and robust”,
and that articles that meet the criteria may be consigned unpackaged and therefore cannot meet the package test requirements. The UK proposed deleting PP67 and L1 and drawing up a new special provision, which would allow dutyholders to consider the provisions relating to large and robust items without having to refer to the packing instructions.
The UK paper was supported by Finland, with some amendments, which raised further issues about specific items. The Working Group gave some support to both arguments but also felt that packing instruction P101 gives the competent authority the ability to specify if a packaging is required or not. The Sub-committee concurred. Due to a lack of support, the UK proposal was withdrawn.
Germany returned to the topic of self-inflating recovery devices and their classification. These devices function in the same was as life-saving appliances (UN 2990) or safety devices (UN 0503 and 3268). Germany proposed a new entry in the dangerous goods list, while also raising the possibility of assigning such devices to one of the new entries for articles, most likely UN
3538. The Working Group was not totally convinced and part of the German proposal was withdrawn. However, the Subcommittee did agree to add at the end of 2.0.5.4 a new sentence: However, this section applies to articles containing explosives which are excluded from Class 1 in accordance with 2.1.3.6.4.
The Working Group had made headway on its tasks in respect of the review of Chapter 2.1 of GHS. It had reviewed the technical criteria for assignment of explosives to subcategories 2A, 2B and 2C in GHS, without necessitating consequential changes in the TDG classification system. It was noted that this would provide an improved system of addressing the classification of explosives in packaging configurations other than those used in transport. The Working Group will continue to provide technical advice and support to the GHS Sub-committee, as needed.
The Working Group had gone through the secretariat’s consolidated list of amendments already adopted and made a few editorial adjustments.
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) returned with more information to support its proposal to regulate the transport of energetic substances, including explosives and self-reactive substances, in small quantities for the purposes of testing. Both the Working Group and the Sub-committee were still unconvinced, citing a lack of sufficient technical background, although the Working Group had at least acknowledged the need for action. Cefic will continue to work on the proposal and come back with another paper during the 2019-2020 biennium.
Sweden argued that the term “manufactured with a view to producing a practical explosive or pyrotechnic effect”, which is in 2.1.1.1(c) of the Model Regulations as part of the definition of Class 1 as well as in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, is being used incorrectly in the GHS, as most of the text concerning Class 1 in the Model Regulations has been copied over to Chapter 2.1 of GHS. In addition, the word “practical” appears to be redundant in most places where the term is used.
The Working Group recommended, and the Sub-committee approved, the deletion of “(2.1.1.1(c))” from the second sentence of 2.1.3.3.1 of the Model Regulations. Other elements of the Swedish proposal relating to the Manual of Tests and Criteria were withdrawn for further work.
Sweden had also spotted what it thought was an error in the Manual of Tests and Criteria. Section 16.5.1.4(c) requires selection of the initiation system for packaged substances not intended for use as explosives on the basis of Text 6(a). However, the current text requires the use of whichever initiation system that gives a “+” result. This is not defined. Sweden’s paper offered a solution, which was accepted. The text of 16.5.1.4(c) will now read: Substances not intended for use as explosives, but provisionally accepted into Class 1, should be tested using whichever initiation system gave evidence of a mass explosion in a type 6 (a) test.
Cefic reverted with a revised version of its proposal to amend packing instructions P400 and P404 to address issues concerning inner receptacles of combination packagings filled
with pyrophoric solids. While the existing provisions have proven to ensure safety during transport, there are occupational safety hazards related to the need to reseal receptacles after partial emptying of their contents. In particular, small residues of pyrophoric substances adhering to threaded closures may react critically due to friction when the closures are screwed back on.
The Sub-committee was happy with Cefic’s latest proposal and agreed to amend P400 and P404 in similar ways, firstly by deleting reference to threaded closures and then by adding a new text to specify:
Inner packagings shall have threaded closures or closures physically held in place by any means capable of preventing back-off or loosening of the closure by impact or vibration during transport.
Cefic also appealed for the inclusion of some exemptions from the provisions of the Model Regulations for the newly adopted UN numbers for polymerising substances. Based on experience so far with the transport of polymerising substances, and by analogy with exemptions for Class 1 articles in packaging, Cefic believed that some relief could be provided, with restrictions.
Several delegations supported the concept but, given that the provisions for polymerising substances had only been introduced two years before, many felt that more experience was needed before considering exemptions. Some ideas were offered for improving the proposal and Cefic, stressing industry’s need for such an exemption, will submit a revised proposal at the next session.
Spain renewed its appeal to have barium carbonate exempted from the provisions. As it is a barium compound, it is currently classified under UN 1564, Division 6.1. However, Spain contended, test results for barium carbonate show it does not meet the criteria for Division 6.1 and it should therefore be treated in the same way as barium sulphate which, by dint of special provision 177, is not subject to the Model Regulations.
There was not much backing for the proposal, with some experts pointing out that barium carbonate can be toxic to humans when ingested. Due to lack of support, the proposal was withdrawn. »
Another proposal from Spain fared rather better. Following proposals prepared by Cefic and the European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA), it seemed sensible that chemicals under pressure (UN 3500 to 3505) should be treated in the same way as aerosols in terms of their assignment to one of the three divisions of Class 2. The Subcommittee agreed and added reference to chemicals under pressure immediately after reference to aerosols in 2.2.1.3 and the Note to 2.2.2.1.
Belgium came back with a firm proposal to clarify the provisions for the marking of inner receptacles of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs), after having canvassed opinion at the previous session. The Sub-committee found its proposal, after some amendments, acceptable and amended the end of the first paragraph of 6.5.2.2.4 to read:
It shall be durable, legible and placed in a location so as to be readily accessible for inspection after assembling the inner receptacle in the outer casing. When the mark on the inner receptacle is not readily accessible for inspection due to the design of the outer casing, a duplicate of the required mark on the inner receptacle shall be placed on the outer casing preceded by the wording “Inner receptacle”. This duplicate shall be durable, legible and placed in a location so as to be readily accessible for inspection.
The International Paint and Printing Ink Council (IPPIC) returned to its plea for amendment of the requirement to provide technical names for substances classified as environmental hazardous substances, nos and transported under UN 3077 or 3082. In the paint business, such technical names can be very long, complex and of no help to the emergency services. It appealed for 3.1.2.8.1.1 to be amended to allow the use of generic names for UN 3077 and 3082.
After some discussion, it was decided that the best route to clarity was to make a change to special provision 274, adding new paragraphs at the end:
For UN 3077 and UN 3082 only, the technical name may be a name shown in capital letters in column 2 of the Dangerous Goods List, provided that this name does not include “N.O.S.” and that special provision 274 is not assigned. The name which most appropriately describes the substance or mixture shall be used, e.g.: UN 3082, ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, LIQUID, N.O.S., (PAINT) UN 3082, ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, LIQUID, N.O.S., (PERFUMERY PRODUCTS)
While the experts continue to struggle with an effective means of regulating lithium batteries in transport, they are also faced with understanding the risks posed by cells and batteries using other chemistries. Switzerland returned to the issue of sodium nickel chloride batteries, presenting a lengthy paper with technical details to support its contention that these batteries do not present a hazard in transport and, therefore, should be exempted from the regulations.
There was limited support for the proposal. Some felt that, as sodium nickel chloride batteries are transported as enclosed
systems, they should be subject to drop or vibration tests. Others felt that, as the batteries contain substances that are themselves classified as dangerous goods in transport, they should not be completely exempted. An example of a way forward may be found in the treatment of sodium batteries, assigned to Division 4.3 on account of their sodium content but with specific transport conditions addressed in a special provision. The Sub-committee eventually agreed that a partial exemption could be justified. However, the experts felt that other factors need to be examined. Switzerland will revise its proposal in light of those comments and will present a new document at the next session. Informal documents from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), France and the European Association for Advanced Rechargeable Batteries (Recharge) advised the Sub-committee that a meeting of the informal working group on lithium battery classification was to take place the following week; they also updated the Sub-committee on the thinking behind the proposed riskbased classification approach. There are several definitions outstanding and also a need to determine the criteria by which to assess fire initiation and propagation.
The Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA) and Recharge reiterated the problems shippers
often have in complying with the labelling and marking requirements for packages of lithium batteries. Such packages can vary widely in size and the marking requirements also vary considerably. Their joint paper proposed amendments to 5.2.1.9.2 to make it easier for shippers to meet the requirements, particularly on smaller packages.
The paper was supported by the Medical Device Battery Transport Council (MDBTC), which offered an alternative solution, although the Sub-committee preferred to adopt some of the changes suggested by PRBA and Recharge. Specifically, these allow the mark required in 5.2.1.9.2 to be rectangular or square, with a minimum size of 100 mm by 100 mm; if the size of the package so requires, the dimensions can be reduced to not less than 100 mm by 70 mm; the reference to “line thickness” has been removed.
At an earlier meeting of WP15, Ireland had sought to include provisions for waste gas cartridges of UN 2037, similar to those already in place for waste aerosols of UN 1950. WP15 indicated that, as this is a multimodal issue, the proposal should be put to the TDG Sub-committee in the first place. Ireland came with proposals to amend special provision 327, add a new special packing »
provision to packing instruction P003, amend PP87 in P207 and amend LP200.
The proposal was adopted with some amendments. It was also noted that the transport of empty gas cartridges and gas cylinders for reprocessing or disposal is an issue that needs detailed examination by the modal authorities; it is possible that this may result in further amendments to the Model Regulations.
SP 327 is amended by adding “and waste gas cartridges” after “waste aerosols” in three places. A new fourth sentence is added: Waste gas cartridges, other than those leaking or severely deformed, shall be packed in accordance with packing instruction P003 and special packing provisions PP17 and PP96, or packing instruction LP200 and special packing provision L2.
A new paragraph is added at the end: Waste gas cartridges that were filled with gases of Division 2.2 and have been pierced are not subject to these regulations.
A new special packing provision is added to P003:
PP96 For UN 2037 waste gas cartridges carried in accordance with special provision 327, the packagings shall be adequately ventilated to prevent the creation of dangerous atmospheres and the build-up of pressure.
In PP87 in P207, “flammable atmospheres” is replaced by “dangerous atmospheres”. Reference to waste gas cartridges is added to LP200, the last sentence of which is amended to follow the text of PP96. In the Dangerous Goods List in Chapter 3.2, against UN 2037, “327” is added in column (6), “LP200” is added in column (8) and “PP96” is added against “P003” in column (9).
The International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) reported that, after undertaking a review of the references in Chapter 6.2 that had been requested by the Sub-committee at the last session, it had not found any redundant standards. ISO will make a proposal at the next session to introduce a reference to ISO 18119:2018.
At the previous session ISO had proposed the introduction of a reference to ISO 17879:2017 Gas cylinders – Self-closing
cylinder valves – Specification and type testing. It had not been adopted at the time, as some experts questioned the need for the increase in the pressure value for the burst test. Subsequent discussions between ISO, EIGA and the Compressed Gases Association (CGA) resulted in a compromise proposal.
Reference to the standard is added in the table in 6.2.2.3 but a Note is appended: “This standard shall not be applied to self-closing valves in acetylene service.”
Reference to this standard is also added in 4.1.6.1.8, accompanied by a new paragraph: For pressure receptacles with self-closing valves with inherent protection, the requirements of annex A of ISO 17879:2017 shall be met.
At the previous session, ISO had also proposed updating the LC50 values of eight toxic gases that were changed in the 2018 revision of ISO 10298 and are now different from those shown in the Model Regulations. The Sub-committee had asked for more information on the sources of the new data, which ISO now provided.
Several experts noted that the toxicity data relating to UN 2196 tungsten hexafluoride and UN 2098 phosphorus pentafluoride are not publicly available and it was not thought appropriate to make changes on the basis of derived data. Sweden indicated that the toxicity data for UN 1008 boron trifluoride were significantly different from those contained in Annex VI to the European Commission’s Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulations. No changes were adopted for these three entries. However, it was agreed that new LC50 values be adopted in Table 2 in P200 for:
• UN 1859 silicon tetrafluoride (450 is replaced by 922)
• UN 2188 arsine (20 is replaced by 178)
• UN 2202 hydrogen selenide (2 is replaced by 51)
• UN 2534 methylchlorosilane (600 is replaced by 2810)
• UN 2676 stibine (20 is replaced by 178). Cefic came back to the issue of liquid/ gas-based suppression systems used in fire control. These are not classified under UN
1044 fire extinguishers, as they meet the Note of SP 225. Cefic noted that gas-based suppression systems are assigned to UN 1956 compressed gas, which have a maximum test period for periodic inspection of 10 years. Liquid/gas systems are assigned to UN 3500 and have a maximum test period of five years, despite having a lower pressure than gas/ gas mixtures. This seemed anomalous. Cefic proposed adding a special packing provision to P206 to extend the maximum test period for such systems to 10 years.
The Sub-committee agreed with Cefic and adopted a new special packing provision in P206: PP97 For fire extinguishing agents assigned to UN 3500 the maximum test period for periodic inspection shall be 10 years. They may be transported in tubes of a maximum water capacity of 450 l conforming to the applicable requirements of Chapter 6.2. HCB
The second part of this two-part report on the UN TDG Sub-committee’s last session in next month’s HCB will cover other miscellaneous changes, global harmonisation and issues related to the GHS. There will also be a condensed overview of all the main changes made to the Model Regulations that will appear this year in the 21st revised edition.
Being able to control fire is one of the significant differences between mankind and other animal species. But it seems there are some individuals in the group that have yet to achieve mastery.
Take this story – kind of old now, but still relevant. A man in Detroit started a fire at a service station in 2015 when he spotted what he thought was a spider hanging out near his filling cap. Clearly arachnophobic, he attempted to burn the blighter using his cigarette lighter. The inevitable happened: the lighter also set fire to gasoline coming out of the nozzle, spreading flames along the car and across the forecourt.
The man’s car suffered some damage but the pump was destroyed. Quick action by the attendant shut off the fuel supply and prevented a disaster.
A more recent example comes from Xi’an, China, where six people were injured in a lift in February. All six were heading up in the lift to the sixth floor of a karaoke bar and one of them had a bunch of balloons. One of the victims reported hearing someone use a lighter (you can smoke in elevators in China?) and there was a sudden explosion.
“There wasn’t much space in the lift and one of them was holding a bunch of balloons. When the lift reached the third floor, a sudden loud bang occurred and I saw a fireball. The flame only lasted for a few seconds and I felt the heat on my face before we reached the fourth floor,” the victim reported.
All six came out of the lift with burn injuries and were rushed by the karaoke bar to the
hospital for treatment. Authorities were, at the end of February, still investigating the cause, though the finger of suspicion points squarely at the lighter.
Other stories show the risks of mixing youth and flammable materials. In March, a teenage girl was badly burned in eastern Turkey. She had been suffering with head lice and was told by a friend that the best way to get rid of them was to wash her hair with gasoline.
Taking that advice, she took some gasoline from a heater at her home (the concept of a gasoline-fuelled home heater sounds highly risky to us) and followed her friend’s instructions. But, bending down, the heater ignited the gasoline on her hair. Her father, hearing her screams, wrapped her in towels to douse the fire and burned his hands in the process. The girl ended up in intensive care and, as is modern practice, her friends set up a fundraising campaign on social media to help pay her medical costs. Perhaps they can check, while on social media, whether gasoline really is any good at getting rid of lice.
Indeed, a quick visit to Dr Google reveals that the practice of using gasoline, kerosene, turpentine or other similar substances to rid the hair of lice goes back at least 100 years and was once recommended in medical journals. However, science has moved on a lot in the intervening period and there are now plenty of ways of doing the job with less risk.
And yet, the practice persists. The website Snopes lists ten similar incidents in the US alone in the 20 years up to 2009.
