The Weekly Report Weather Forecast
20 - 26 April 2014
by Operator Radio Lamongan Radio PKD-233

New Priok Port in Jakarta (Kalibaru Port)

The construction of a new port - an extension of Indonesia's busiest port, Tanjung Priok - is one of the biggest public projects currently in development in Indonesia. The Tanjung Priok harbor in North Jakarta which handles more than half of total goods that are exported from or imported to Indonesia has however become overloaded over the years. The New Priok project will bring Indonesia's port facilities on par with other world-class ports. It will significantly strengthen Indonesia's logistics chain, thus implying a better environment for trade and other businesses. Developer and operator of this mega-project is state-owned enterprise Pelindo II.

When fully operational in 2023, this New Priok Port (which is also known as Kalibaru Port) will more than triple annual capacity of Tanjung Priok.

Phases of Construction

The complete New Priok Port project is divided into three phases. The first phase includes the installation of container terminal infrastructure and equipment (USD $1.38 billion) as well as construction of a new petroleum product terminal (USD $730 million) on a total of 195 hectares of land in North Jakarta. In this phase the port's length of piers becomes around 4,000 meters. The groundbreaking of this first phase was held in March 2013 (attended by president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono). The company that won the tender for the construction of the container terminal is Mitsui & Co, one of Japan's largest trading companies. In May 2013, it was reported that Royal HaskoningDHV, a Dutch project management and engineering consultancy service provider, won the contract to supervise the construction of the extension of the main port. The first phase is expected to be completed in 2014.

The tender for terminal two and three is currently open. The winner will be announced in September 2013.

When the whole project is completed, Jakarta's Tanjung Priok Port will increase its annual capacity from five million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) of containers to 18 million TEU and will be able to facilitate triple-E class container ships (with a 18,000 TEU capacity) in a 300 meters wide two-way sea lane. Tanjung Priok was originally designed to handle five million TEU of container traffic per year. In 2011, however, container traffic in this harbor reached 5.8 TEU, indicating the necessity to expand its infrastructure.

Involved Company

Through a presidential decree (No. 36/2012) issued in April 2012 Indonesia Port Corporation II (abbreviated IPC but better known in Indonesia as Pelindo II) was tasked to develop and operate the New Priok Port. Pelindo II is Indonesia's largest port operator and plans to invest USD $2.47 billion to realize this project. The project will be funded through Pelindo II's own resources, national and international loans as well as funding from major shipping and port operators. Funding from the Indonesian State Budget (APBN) is not allowed in any form.

For more information regarding this project, please contact Indonesia Investments or visit:

• New Priok Port (official website)

Singapore First to Mandate Mass Flow Metering

The Port of Singapore is the first in the world to mandate the use of mass flow metering (MFM) systems for bunkering. This was announced by Mr Lui Tuck Yew, Minister for Transport, at the Singapore Bunkering Symposium on April 8. The bunkering symposium is one of the key events of the Singapore Maritime Week 2014.

In his opening address, Minister Lui said that as the first port in the world to mandate the use of mass flow meters for bunkering, we will set a new benchmark for bunkering practices worldwide. He highlighted that the use of MFM system for bunkering in the Port of Singapore will not only enhance transparency in the bunkering process, but also improve operational efficiency and increase the productivity of the entire industry.

MPA chief executive, Mr Andrew Tan said, "To safeguard Singapore's reputation as a top bunkering port in the world, we are taking the lead in being the first to mandate the use of mass flow meters. It is a significant milestone for the bunkering industry in Singapore and it will strengthen our position in the long term as a reliable and trusted port for bunkering operations."

The MFM system enhances transparency, increases productivity and minimises illegal bunkering activities. MPA is confident that the adoption of MFM system for bunkering in the Port of Singapore will provide better assurance to both the bunker buyers and suppliers on the quantity of bunker delivered, and safeguard Singapore's reputation as the world's top bunkering port.

Implementation of MFM system:

With effect from 1 January 2017, it is mandatory for bunker suppliers to use the MFM system for bunker delivery of Marine Fuel Oil (MFO) in the Port of Singapore. All existing bunker tankers operating in port must be fitted with a MPA-approved MFM system for MFO delivery in the Port of Singapore by 31 December 2016. All new bunker tankers applying for Harbour Craft (Bunker Tanker) licence after 31 December 2014 will be required to be fitted with a MPA-approved MFM system for MFO delivery.

Incentive scheme to assist the industry:

To assist the industry to offset a portion of the cost of the MFM system adoption, MPA will be offering a lump sum incentive of S$80,000 for each existing bunker tanker delivering MFO in the Port of Singapore. The incentive will be given out upon MPA's approval of each fitted MFM system.

Partnerships:

To ensure that the MFM system is suitable to be used for bunkering, MPA and SPRING Singapore jointly initiated a MFM Working Group to develop and validate the use of MFM system for bunkering in 2009. The Working Group, which consists of members from Weights and Measures Office (WMO) of SPRING Singapore, National Metrology Centre @A*Star (NMC), MPA and various stakeholders in the bunkering industry, had conducted extensive trials using MFM system since 2011.

MPA has undertaken close consultation with the industry through the Singapore Shipping Association and the International Bunker Industry Association in implementing the mandatory MFM, and many of its members are supportive.

In conjunction with this symposium, the NMC announced the opening of its Liquid Flow Laboratory to conduct further R&D in high viscosity fluids and signed a research collaboration agreement with Mogas Flow Lab Pte Ltd on the establishment of a primary mass flow standard and facilities for mass flow measurement of marine fuel oil.

Bunkering remains an important sector of the Singapore maritime industry. In 2013, the Port of Singapore recorded bunker sales volume of 42.7 million tonnes, retaining its position as the world's top bunkering port.

The Weekly Report Weather Forecast 
17 - 23 April 2014
by Operator Radio Lamongan Radio PKD-233

Survivors Still Alive On South Korea Ferry

Several people appear to have survived in an air pocket of a capsized South Korean ferry, the father of one of the school children aboard the boat told a Reuters reporter accompanying families out to the scene of the disaster on Thursday.

About 290 people are still missing out of 450 passengers on the Sewol ferry, which capsized in still-mysterious circumstances off the Korean peninsula on Wednesday in what could be the country's worst maritime accident in 20 years.
Many of the passengers were school children from one high school on the outskirts of Seoul.
"(The child) told me in the text message, 'I am alive, there are students alive, please save us quickly," the father said.
Coastguard and navy divers resumed searching on Thursday after the ferry capsized in sight of land on a trip from the port city of Incheon to the holiday island of Jeju, about 100 km (60 miles) south of the peninsula.
Grieving family members gathered early on Thursday on the quay of the coastal city of Jindo, huddled in blankets against the spring cold as efforts to find the missing went into a second day.
One parent, Park Yung-suk, told Reuters she had seen the body of her teenage daughter's teacher brought ashore earlier in the morning.
"If I could teach myself to dive, I would jump in the water and try to find my daughter," Park said as light rain fell. So far 179 people have been rescued and six confirmed dead. As coastguard officials arrived at Jindo on Thursday, waiting relatives jeered at them, shouting: "The weather's nice, why aren't you starting the rescue."
It is not known why the 6,586 tonne vessel, built in Japan 20 years ago, sank.
Nautical charts of the wider area show reefs and shallow waters, although one government official appeared to discount the possibility the ship had hit a rock.

It was not immediately clear why the Sewol ferry had listed heavily onto its side in apparently calm waters off South Korea's southwest coast, but some survivors spoke of a loud noise prior to the disaster.
There were reports of the ferry having veered off course, but coordinates of the site of the accident provided by port authorities indicated it was not far off the regular shipping lane.

The ferry sent a distress signal early on Wednesday, the coastguard said, triggering a rescue operation that involved almost 100 coastguard and navy vessels and fishing boats, as well as 18 helicopters.
According to public shipping databases, the registered owner of the ship is Chonghaejin Marine Co Ltd, based in Incheon. Reuters was unable to reach the company by phone.

Earlier, in a statement read out to local media, a company official offered an apology over the accident but declined to comment further.
The databases showed that Chonghaejin Marine Co Ltd became the owner of the vessel in October, 2012.

Back to 102 Years Ago: The Mystery Surrounding The TITANIC

The bow of wrecked RMS Titanic, photographed in June 2004

By Nikeel Idnani

Perhaps the greatest maritime disaster ever occurred on April 14/15, 1912, when 1,513 people met their watery grave aboard the White Star Line’s pride, the RMS Titanic, about 95 miles south of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland after it struck an iceberg.

Questions remain even to this day:

How could an iceberg cause such catastrophic damage to an "unsinkable" steel ship?
How did this fiasco occur in calm seas and clear weather?
Why was there uninhibited flooding despite all watertight doors being closed remotely from the bridge?
Why was there no response to any of the distress signals being transmitted for almost twohours?
Was safety of life at sea not a prime consideration of the shipbuilders/naval architects?

How It Happened

Aesthetically, the $7.5 million RMS Titanic was the epitome of self-indulgence. The passenger list included a “who's who” of the era, and the famous four-funneled, 46,328 GRT, "Millionaire's Special" – at that time the largest and most luxurious vessel afloat – had a double-bottom hull. To guarantee safety, 15 transverse bulkheads divided her from bow to stern into 16 “almost” watertight compartments. Since four of these could be flooded without endangering the liner's buoyancy, she was considered unsinkable.

The Titanic leaves Southampton, England on April 10, 1912 in one of the last known photos before she went to her watery grave

Shortly before midnight on April 14, while steaming at 21.5 knots, adjudged at the time to be too fast for existing conditions, the ship collided with an iceberg that apparently ripped a 300-foot gash along the vessel's starboard bow. While some passengers and crew recounted an understated “faint grinding jar,” six watertight compartments were in fact breached, which caused the ship to founder at 0220 hours, April 15. The ship was designed to allow for four forward compartments to be flooded without the risk of sinking. When six forward compartments flooded, the ship trimmed excessively, causing water to overflow into the abaft compartments as the separating bulkheads were not watertight up to the uppermost continuous deck.

The greatest problem in navigating the Grand Banks region, which is on the Great Circle route from Europe to North America, is limited visibility due to low-lying fog. This is most persistent during the worst ice-threat period of April, May and June. As the number of ships plying the route increased, the recurrence of pack ice and iceberg collisions became less of a menace than the peril of collision between ships bound in opposite directions at night or during poor visibility.

After an accident involving a French and an American ship on Sept 27, 1854, which claimed 300 lives, separate eastbound & westbound lanes across the North Atlantic Ocean were designated. Furthermore, modifications of advisable shipping routes were established in 1898 due to the continued occurrence of pack ice and iceberg collisions. Unfortunately, icebergs wandered astray of anticipated limits and, although navigation passages were well-instituted and conformed to by major shipping companies, collisions still occurred.

After perhaps 3,000 years of snow accumulation and creep across the Greenland terrain, an iceberg broke off the west Greenland coast and drifted for perhaps two years, until April 1912, in the Labrador Current, carried at one to two knots towards the North Atlantic maritime routes. This iceberg had a ram (underwater projection), as most bergs do by the time they enter the warmer waters near the Gulf Stream. Due to the force of wind and current, this drift ice was driven into the path of the Titanic on April 14, 1912, and they collided at latitude 41°46'N and longitude 50°14'W.

The ship’s owners had apparently urged Capt. Edward John Smith to make a speedy Trans-Atlantic voyage so as to arrive in New York City before the expected date, thus gaining publicity and admiration from the passengers. While other vessels on similar routes altered course and reduced speed, theTitanic's triple expansion engines continued to run the three propellers at full service speed despite receiving six iceberg warnings.

Few on board gave much heed to iceberg warnings as they were under the misconception that the ship was unsinkable. Everyone was oblivious to the impending doom.

Two hours before impact, the wireless operator received a warning of heavy pack ice from the shipMesaba. Rather than report it to the Second Officer on bridge, the "sparky" negligently placed the message on his spike that fateful night. This ice field was lying directly in Titanic's path.

The sea was smooth as glass with the stars being clearly reflected in the water under a moonless sky. Had the sea been rougher, the waves breaking against the iceberg would have made it more noticeable. Even the lookouts, 29 meters above sea level in the crow’s nest, were unable to spot floating objects in the exceptionally calm water in the dark night.

The iceberg was sighted about a quarter mile from the ship by probably not very vigilant lookouts, who might have been battling to keep themselves warm in the near-freezing ambient temperature. This was insufficient distance for the 883-foot vessel to take precautionary maneuvers. A mere 37 seconds elapsed from the time of warning to the moment of impact, inadequate for the steam-powered steering gear to effect rudder “hard over” with the ship running ahead at maximum service speed. While it is inconclusive when exactly the engines had been reversed, the rudder effectiveness would have been hampered by the interruption in the flow of water passing the rudder and by the reduction in the force of water coming off the center propeller.

The iceberg that sank RMS. Titanic, photographed on the morning of 15 April 1912 

Edward Wilding, a naval architect, studied sonar reports taken through the sand sea bed and concluded that, contrary to the popular perception of a massive 300-foot gash, the iceberg actually caused a series of small holes, approximately 12 square feet in total surface area. The unequal flooding of the compartments was primarily responsible for the catastrophe. Within 20 minutes of the crash some 8,000 tons of sea water entered the ship. This increased to 25,000 tons 40 minutes later. 

The “Achilles Heel”

Gibbs & Cox, a naval architecture firm based in Arlington, Virginia, was intrigued as to why the ship broke in two. They developed a computer model that illustrated stress distribution in various conditions. In a simulated flood case, stress concentrations of up to 35,000 psi were estimated in strategic locations, about 1.5 times the maximum force the hull could endure. These magnified stresses buckled plates and popped rivets, eventually overwhelming the liner.

Due to access difficulties while using a pneumatic riveting machine to construct the curved sections of the hull, the steel plates were sealed using wrought iron rivets rather than the stronger steel rivets. The iron rivets were easier to hammer into place. However, this proved to be Titanic’s “Achilles heel” as the iron rivets succumbed with a mere five millimeters of relative movement between the steel plates, which the rivets were meant to secure.

A riveted joint is not as strong as an equivalent welded joint, leading to a weaker ship. Titanic's hull was comprised of about 2,000 plates, each one-inch thick, secured by some three million rivets. If cracks occurred due to the inherent weakness of the vessel, i.e., if the bending moment created unduly high stresses, the crack would spread through the plates whether they were riveted, welded or a combination of each.

Inquires held in the U.S. and Great Britain alleged that the Leyland Line steamship Californian, which was less than 20 nautical miles away, could have aided the stricken vessel had the radio operator been on duty. The rocket parachute flares fired reportedly paled against the dazzling starlight.


Lessons Learned

The tragedy resulted in the establishment of the International Ice Patrol in 1913 to patrol and guard by ship, plane or other feasible means the eastern, southern and western limits of drifting Arctic ice during the most dangerous part of the year. Ships are warned twice daily by detailed messages broadcast to all North Atlantic shipping concerning the boundaries of ice and positions of threatening icebergs. The U.S. Coast Guard has operated the ice patrol since its inception.

Safety philosophy changed forever. Present-day regulations demand sufficient lifeboat accommodation on a passenger liner for the total number of persons the vessel is certified to carry. In ships likely to encounter icebergs, the shell plating in the region of the waterline forward is increased in thickness for ice navigation strengthening. While the exact reasons for what happened continue to perplex us, it must be borne in mind that despite prevalent state-of-the-art technology, an unsinkable ship is a mere hypothesis.

It beggars belief that in January 2012, a century after Titanic, an ultra-modern seven-year-old luxury cruise ship, outfitted with the latest technology including double-redundancy navigation safety equipment, ran aground near the coast of Tuscany and capsized with the loss of some 32 lives. In that case, human error, which is said to account for 80 percent of all marine accidents, was the probable cause of the mishap.


Likewise, last year an 8,110-TEU containership suffered a fracture amidships. The fore and aft sections broke asunder and subsequently plunged into the abyss of the Indian Ocean. While the investigation is still underway, it is likely that, as with the Titanic, a combination of reasons, viz., structural weakness, unusual weather load and heavier container weight distribution, might be plausible causes that contributed toward the dramatic loss of the five-year-old hull. This 302-meter ship was the first in a six-ship series that was built at a leading shipyard to new lightweight design using 47kgf/mm2, high-tensile steel.


In the building of ships, technical innovation runs headlong into commercial pressures to deliver ships within budget and on time to be subsequently contracted on tight schedules. A ship, after all generates revenue only when sailing.

The sinking of the Titanic led directly to the introduction two years later of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. Shipping is one of the safest means of passenger transport there is. Statistics illustrate that travel by sea has far lower death rates than those for cars, motorcycles or bicycles, and even for pedestrians in Europe.

As we up the ante of technology, what with the rumored 24,000-TEU container ship expected to be put into service around 2018, we must be reminded of the parable about the vanity of human striving, divine punishment for overweening confidence in our technological achievement, and the futility of human effort in a world governed by indifferent nature.

Nonetheless, the number of ships over 100 GT lost in 2013 was 94, a 20 percent reduction from 2012, which contributed to a 45 percent decline in ship losses from 2003 to 2013. Experience has indeed been a very good educator, albeit a costly one. – MarEx

Nikeel Idnani is based in Dubai. He is the Business Development Manager for a major classification society and was formerly Chief Engineer onboard merchant ships plying the North Atlantic.

Marine Armor System Extends Global Reach

by Marex

Following on from the continued success of the product, Marine Armor System are excited to announce its global launch and updated website.

MAS is an innovative non-lethal vessel protection system based on ballistic blinds, protecting the vessel or rig against pirate attacks and other potential threats such as armed robbery, terrorism and acts of sabotage. The system includes anti pirate blockades, bunkers and armored citadels or safe rooms onboard, protecting crew with a bulletproof barrier in case of pirate boarding, in line with IMO recommendations.

MAS is part of the Collbaix group, which has over 40 years’ experience in the production, distribution and installation of high security blinds (architectural shielding). Using this extensive experience in providing secure access solutions to both commercial and residential properties, MAS was formed as a solution against naval piracy.

Edurne del Río of Marine Amour System says “Following on from its significant success in Spain we are very proud to be launching MAS globally as a passive solution against the threat of piracy; providing protection to the lives of crew and the assets onboard ship. In the event of a pirate attack response times onboard must be rapid. This is why we have developed a new automatic system which is designed to protect the whole vessel within ten seconds; at the push of a button.”

MAS is manufactured using kriptonia, a patented high-quality material stronger than steel, bullet proof and certified with an FB6 ballistic level (to stop military weapons), designed to protect the most vulnerable areas in any vessel or platform. MAS manufacture, supply and install security hardening systems worldwide onshore or offshore. The system is hidden when not in use, requiring no storage space onboard.

EU Parliament Reject Ship NOx Monitoring

On April 16, the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted to reject a proposal to monitor nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from shipping.
This is despite the fact that shipping emissions are set to overtake all land-based sources by 2020, according to environmental organization Transport & Environment. The organization says EU governments must not waste this unique opportunity to monitor two of the most harmful air pollutants, NOx and SOx, as part of the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of shipping emissions proposal.

Air pollution from international shipping, of which SOx and NOx emissions are a big part, accounts for about 50,000 premature deaths per year in Europe, says Transport & Environment.
MEPs rejected the Environment Committee’s amendment to add NOx to the MRV requirement to report CO2. The Environment Committee had already excluded sulphur reporting despite the new SOx regulations that enter force in 2015. In addition, MEPs also rejected the chance to monitor ship efficiency, which is a key enabler to improve the sector’s environmental performance.

Aoife O’Leary, Transport & Environment policy officer for shipping, said: “Inexplicably Liberal MEPs rejected their own policy recommendations to include NOx and joined others in seriously undermining emissions monitoring. Given that NOx from shipping in Europe is set to exceed all land-based sources by 2020, it is a serious setback to the health and environment of Europeans.”
O’Leary added: “Shipping emissions monitoring is a clever and cost-effective way to report all air pollutants, including SOx and NOx, at once. But the Parliament’s decision is short sighted, and member states must now ensure that Europe includes these emissions if its monitoring proposal is to be worthwhile.”

Multipurpose Shipping: Positive Outlook After Tough Year

Drewry’s latest Multipurpose Shipping Market Review and Forecaster report anticipates better times ahead for the sector following a tough 2013. Last year cargo demand for multipurpose and heavylift vessels was adversely impacted by determined competition from other shipping sectors.

While cargo demand has risen steadily since the crash of 2009, the multipurpose sector share of those volumes has eroded. Drewry reckons that 2013 was in fact a worse year for ship owners than recession blighted 2009, as its market share dropped to just 8% of dry cargo, although tonnage was actually higher.
The biggest growth in 2013 volumes came, not surprisingly, from minor bulks, consisting primarily of steel and forest products. Global steel production in 2013 exceeded 1.6 billion tonnes, with growth of almost 5% compared to 2012. Whilst some major exporters (South Korea, EU, USA) reported decreased exports over 2012, China and Taiwan continued to show strong growth (18% and 9% respectively) which contributed to an expansion in overall global traffic. By contrast, demand for general cargo, which includes project cargoes, dropped over 30%. Drewry believes this was due to a double hit of increased competition from other shipping sectors and a slowdown in the project market. Drewry estimates that project cargo volumes fell by almost 15% over the year.

However the outlook is more positive. Global steel production is expected to rise at an average annual rate of 5% over the next two years. The outlook for project cargo is more mixed. While the expectation for 2014 remains subdued, there are signs that this sector should begin to pick up further volumes towards the end of the year and grow in 2015/2016.
Drewry forecasts that demand for the multipurpose shipping will grow at an average annual rate of 5% over the coming years. However, we are only expecting modest growth in 2014, as competition from other shipping sectors will continue to eat away at market share. But we expect the sector’s market share to recover through 2015/16.

Susan Oatway, senior consultant at Drewry said:

"We continue to be concerned about competition from container lines, particularly for the project carriers; any delay in the recovery of that sector will also delay recovery in this one. Meanwhile the multipurpose vessel orderbook is very manageable and as long as newbuildings have a unique quality – whether that is eco-friendly engines or extraordinary lift capacity – there is still space to accommodate them. This means that Drewry’s forecast does provide some room for optimism for owners. Demand is expected to continue to grow and has the potential to deliver significantly increased volumes.
Drewry said last year that current market conditions were untenable, but carriers seem to have borne them even longer. With the new vessels that are now trading, capital costs are a significant part of most shipowners’ bottom lines, and that can only be borne for so long. It remains our view that those owners that are able to promote their vessels as the value-added alternative to containers will be the ones to see positive results again sooner rather than later."


More information on Drewry’s outlook for the multipurpose shipping sector can be found in a recently published White Paper which is available for FREE by following this link: http://www.drewry.co.uk/news.php?id=266

New Focus on Oil Spill Response Technology 

Gazprom joins Arctic research study

by Marex

Gazprom Neft has become the first Russian company to join the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Joint Industry Program (JIP) run by the world’s largest oil and gas companies.
The four-year JIP was launched in December 2012 to carry out research in several areas, including studying the fate of dispersed oil under ice, dispersant testing under realistic conditions as well as oil spill detection and mapping in low visibility and ice.

The joint research will contribute to industry knowledge, broadening opportunities for testing equipment, conducting large-scale industrial experiments and developing technology and techniques for preventing oil spills in Arctic conditions.

Vadim Yakovlev, First Deputy CEO of Gazprom Neft, said: “Developing oil fields in the Arctic region, including off-shore, requires advanced technological solutions for production, ensuring environmental safety and reducing any environmental impact. The joint research program will enable us to employ international best practice and global expertise in constant improving environmental security systems in the Arctic.”

The program is run by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) and coordinated by an executive committee of representatives from the participant companies.

Participants in the program include BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, ExxonMobil, NCOC, Shell, Statoil and Total.