The Enel Vetting system Shipping Safety and Marine risk assessment Roma, 07 Novembre 2011
Enel Group Enel is Italy's largest power company, and Europe's second listed utility by installed capacity. It is an integrated player which produces, distributes and sells electricity and gas. The Enel Group has a presence in 40 countries over 4 continents, has around 96,000 MW of net installed capacity and sells power and gas to more than 61 million customers. Mission Our mission is to create and distribute value in the international energy market We serve the community, respecting the environment and the safety of individuals, with a commitment to creating a better world for future generations Values Wherever we are present, our ethical goal is to behave like good citizens of the world serving all clients and stakeholders, in the 40 countries where we operate
Environmental & Safety Policy Environmental Policy Basic Principles: Environmental protection, labor safety and health environmental and product quality improvement Strategic Objectives: disclosure and transparency towards citizens and institutions on the Company's environmental management encourage suppliers and contractors to undertake sustainable environmental practices Code of Ethics Enel adopted the code of ethics which regulates also the environmental issues. Safety and Environmental policy is implemented at all level in the Group.
Fuel Department Fuel Fuel is a department of Generation and Energy Management division. It provides fuels (Coal, Fuel Oils, biomass) maritime and logistic services for power plant stations. The fuels mainly coal (~ 24Mt per year) are transported from Indonesia, South Africa, South America and USA. Every year Enel uses about 300 ships (from Cape to Handy size types) Main routes of Enel vessels Coal Liquids & Biomass Shipping Logistics & Storages Contracts Mngt, & Vetting Environmental and safety policies are implemented by Enel also through Marine Risk control by Vetting services aimed to promote safety and best marine practices and to mitigate risks from using substandard ships. Risks arising from using substandard ships include: Undue delays and costs while the ship is inspected in port Falling foul of regulators Rising insurance costs Vessel Vetting & Quality Assurance Casualties - from delays through to total loss - which carry severe commercial, human and environmental costs
Enel Trade Vetting system Many industry bodies, governments and stakeholders within the shipping which have been working since long time to develop stringent standard and requirements to control and mitigate the risk. In addition to international standards and regulatory requirements, major players (mainly Oil and Chemical Companies) have put in place additional controls to reduce marine risk. The marine risk assessment made by Vetting Department has became over the recent years the new approach while assessing the quality ships and suitability for a specific task. It is the best way to match available vessels to the operational requirements of the voyage and the need to properly manage risk. On the 2000 Enel Trade started the Vetting activity and became member of OCIMF (Oil Company International Marine Forum). On the 2003 ENEL has implemented and applied, as pioneer in the industry, the vetting process also in the Drybulk sector with the aim of apply same risk assessment process as already done in tankers. A Vessel Selection Policy for Bulk Carrier and Tanker has been issued, with guidelines for the assessment process and details of Minimum expected Safety Criteria for vessel carrying Enel cargoes and/or chartered for long time period. The Policy is governing the ship acceptance clauses in the Enel Standard C/P. 5000 Ships 3200 Screening details 800 Inspection details The Vetting system accounts records for
A focus on the supply chain: many players in the dry sector and only few vetting oriented Business Case Mining company / Suppliers Port Authority / Terminals Ship Technical Managers / Disp Owners / Charters (voyage, time) Receivers Many Disponent Owners in the chains (most of them not Traditional Shipping company) looking at economics rather than to quality standard of the tonnage. The dry cargo ships still seen as not risky or even not pollutant Unwillingness to comply and adhere to best practice ( cfr ISM code 1.2.3) Marine risk assessment and Vetting for dry vessels not yet regulated, less structured or even not used by most of players. Except on very few cases, most of the players are not operating as Vetting companies, therefore they look for technical approval/advise provided by external/independent firms. Requests for technical approval of ship have grown within the market, especially after the expansion of online vetting service providers. RightShip is one of the most known web-based online vetting service.
Dry Cargo Vetting system VS Tanker Vetting System (difference between a traditional screening on tankers and the screening of dry carriers) Similarity Vetting process takes into account a number of factors: Owner, Ship Technical operators performance (fleet), Casualty, Port state control, Environmental incidents, Class history, Technical inspections On board Crew complement (officers matrix) is part of the key factors assessed Vetting process takes into account a number of factors: Owner, Ship Technical operators performance (fleet), Casualty, Port state control, Environmental incidents, Class history, Technical inspections On board Crew complement (officers matrix) is part of the key factors assessed Dry Vetting Tanker Vetting Difference In the standard case a ship inspection report would be not available. Risk assessment is done by Vetting analyst each and every time. Strict focus and deep analysis on: class history parent fleet performance SMS procedures and onboard implementation management of change SIRE inspection report / VPQ are always available to support the ship appraisal through an automatic or traditional (manual) risk assessment.
Enel Vetting System VS Rightship online Vetting systems (a small focus on the activity) The risk assessment in Dry bulk is in standard condition not supported by physical inspection reports like SIRE for tanker ships. Similarity Enel System Vetting process takes into account a number of factors: Owner, Ship Technical operators performance (fleet), Casualty, Port state control, Environmental incidents, Class history, Technical inspections Rightship Vetting process takes into account a number of factors: Owner, Ship Technical operators performance (fleet), Casualty, Port state control, Environmental incidents, Class history, Technical inspections Difference Risk assessment is done by Vetting analyst each and every time. On board Crew complement (officers matrix) is part of the key factors assessed The Class status is evaluated each and every time The 25%-30% of chartered vessels are Technically inspected (fleet/ship of interest, frequently employed, follow up, after negative performance) Risk rating is obtained automatically through specific software (SVIS) Vetting specialist analysis is done only in case of low automatic rating. Technical Inspection is carried out on voluntary basis or in consequence of exceptional negative cases (Casualty, PSC detention, incidents) The absence of recent or negative records (Port sate inspections, incident) might theoretically lead to consider a ship recommendable even without any information on the crew on board or even ignoring the ship is undergoing a dry-dock repairs Using a brand new ship does not necessarily reduce the risk of using a poor managed ship This are the most common false perception of many dry bulk stake holders
Vessel Screening activity 2010 figures Ships are evaluated each and every time they are nominated Cancelled: Screening assessment not finalized Screening performance 2010 Approved Not Approved Cancelled % Not Appr Tot Coal 196 25 55 9,4% 267 Dry Biomasse 52 1 4 1,8% 57 Calcare/cenere 5 6 14 24,0% 25 Liquid Fuel Oil 49 8 3 13,3% 60 Nota: Shuttle voyages not considered Trend Screening 2007 2008 2009 Tanker 73 76 69 General cargo 23 28 31 Bulk 331 443 309 Tot 427 547 409 Request of Screening 2010 (repetitive ships) Bulker 215 20% Tanker 24 71% Gen. cargo (biomasse) 16 55% Calcare/ Cenere 6% Biomasse 14% Screening 2010 Fuel Oil 15% Coal 65% 215 (bulk carrier) proposed for 267 nomination 1/5 of screenings Coal performed on ships already evaluated. 25 % on 2009
Inspection activity 2009 2010 figures Vetting Inspection figures 2010 vs 2009 2009 2010 % Bulk 65 65 0% General carrier 4 3-25% 159 Panamax performed 171 voyages (coal) 60 (38%) bulker inspected 3% of (159) already inspected on 2009 (10 on2008) 66% of ships being employed were leading to fleet of which at least one was inspected, Dry Inspection performance 2010 Approved Not Appr. Pending Tot Coal 26 10 29 65 Biomass 3 0 0 3 Inspections on Dry-cargo (coal) ships vs Voyages 2010 Voyages Vessel Inspections Isp. Year -1 Ispect. same Owners Coal 171 159 60 5 105 % 7% 38% 3% 66% As of 30 September inspection on Bulkers up to 70 (35% of chartered ships) Almost 200 bulk carriers (panamax) have been inspected on 2008-2010 Focusing on fleet of interest we can acquire information on the management and then smooth the screening process.
Areas of Concerns frequently observed issues during screening and inspection activities No safety oriented or not proactive to implement best marine practice Management of Change process not monitored Safety Management system not structured and/or tailored to ship needs (few generic instructions) No extra training provided to crew and officers Recruitment and indoctrination/familiarization process not well established and monitored Unsatisfactory monitoring of SMS implementation and overall ship performance (safety, maintenance, preparedness, language barrier and English proficiency) Safety inspection and internal audit program not satisfactory Bridge team management and standard of navigation very poor (appraisal, planning, execution and monitoring, navigation charts management, etc) Non conformity and close-out management process ineffective and/or unsatisfactory (incident / accident / near miss investigation and management)
Vetting Policy and Minimum Marine Safety Criteria focus on areas of major interest Policy and MMSC Focus on: INTRODUCTION - GENERAL PRINCIPLES VESSELS INSPECTIONS REPORTING INCIDENTS AGE REQUIREMENTS COMBINATION CARRIERS (ORE/OBO) Chapter A Chapter B Chapter C Chapter D Chapter E Chapter F GENERAL INFORMATION - VESSEL PARTICULARS CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION CREW MANAGEMENT NAVIGATION SAFETY MANAGEMENT POLLUTION PREVENTION Chapter G STRUCTURAL CONDITION /CARGO AND BALLAST SYSTEM Chapter H MOORING PSC and non-conformity close out process (from MoU s and Operator resp) Safety awareness and onboard preparedness ( from inspections) Crew composition and experience / training (from Officer s matrix) Bridge team management and navigation procedures (on the spot) Class survey report and repairs history (from Operators) Mooring procedures (from inspections) PMS and standard of maintenance (from inspection and PSC reports) Chapter I Chapter L COMMUNICATIONS ENGINE AND STEERING GEAR COMPARTMENTS Chapter M HULL AND WEATHER DECKS-ACCOMODATIONS- ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE Clear Vetting rules and fair approach toward the stakeholders Careful screening activity Concentrated Vetting inspection campaign and follow-up with Operator
Goals and objectives Main goals and objectives: Mitigate risks of using substandard ships and fleets Share and promote best practice in the industry Support Owners in becoming familiar with the Charter marine risk assessment system and the auditing process Acquire as much as possible reliable information and track records of ships to support risk management system Promote a common rules and standard approach to marine risk assessment involving all the players involved in the market Standardizing the vessel inspection process