Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Assistant Professor, Laboratory for Maritime Transport, School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, NTUA 2. PhD Candidate, Laboratory for Maritime Transport, School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, NTUA
OUTLINE
1. Introduction
2. Legislative regime
3. Factors in consideration STS transfer operation
4. Risk assessment
5. Lessons learned from accidents 6. Conclusions
4th Int. Symposium of MASSEP.
INTODUCTION
Significant development due to: Operational factors (optimization of the distribution plan) Trading factors (offshore storage - contango situation)
INTRODUCTION
AIM OF THIS STUDY :
Describe the latest developments, Preliminary risk analysis/assessment of the procedure, Importance of lessons learnt from case studies PhD: development of a dynamic risk framework for STS transfers.
INTRODUCTION
Petroleum products (Usaly)
INTRODUCTION
Initially used on the decade of 1960s in the Gulf of Mexico. Transfer of cargo between seagoing ships positioned alongside. Constant heading vessel moves on a study direction with slow speed, while the other ship called maneuvering vessel approach the first ship Objective cause for both ships is to come on parallel courses with similar speed and their manifolds in line so to continue with the transfer procedure. Stationary or underway. Lightering transshipment from a larger ship to a smaller one or Reverse Lightering transshipment vice versa
The arrival control of operation, communications, safety issues & emergencies, navigational issues.
The berthing Maneuvering alongside, maneuver control, mooring arrangement, weather considerations The transfer of cargo Pre-transfer procedure, cargo transfer, operations after completion of cargo transfer The departure unmooring plan, unmooring procedures and unberthing procedure, report to Authorities, record the operation.
POAC
Vessel Crew
STS Superintendent
Vessel Crew
STS Superintendent
attack
human injury/
fire
loss
4th Int. Symposium of MASSEP.
Analysis conducted in 2004; 1,270 STS transfer operations; a time window of 10 years
No major pollution incident; Oil leakage in 7 cases (5.5) from which only two ended up to the sea. Minor collisions was 11.81 cases per 1000 operations
Case 1: Collision between VLCC and Aframax tanker at the beginning of STS procedure
Case 2: Collision between two Aframax oil tankers at the end of the STS procedure
CONCLUSIONS
IMO resolution MEPC 186(59)/2009 gives to tanker vessels the full operational responsibility of an STS transfer operation.
amendment of the respective IMO resolution so to conclude gas and chemical products. The law allows masters to perform as superintendents. It seems appropriate to keep the two roles separated and not to cause additional problems with aforementioned combination. The factor of human fatigue seems to be determinant in the occurrence and escalation of accidents.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of tugs; if tugs are not available then mooring and unmooring is better to happen underway.
The success of an STS transfer operation is based on the experience of the POAC/superintendent and the masters as well as on the good training of the personnel involved. Guides and practices are to be revised and amended taking into account the lessons learned from the recorded accidents.
THANK U!!
D.I. Stavrou, N. P. Ventikos.
STS transfer operation between three ships underway at Skagen reef in Denmark