Issues and Considerations for BWMS Existing Ships Impact Overview Sid Kulbhaskar, Shell Shipping & Maritime
DEFINITIONS & Cautionary Note Reserves: Our use of the term reserves in this presentation means SEC proved oil and gas reserves. Resources: Our use of the term resources in this presentation includes quantities of oil and gas not yet classified as SEC proved oil and gas reserves. Resources are consistent with the Society of Petroleum Engineers 2P and 2C definitions. Organic: Our use of the term Organic includes SEC proved oil and gas reserves excluding changes resulting from acquisitions, divestments and year-average pricing impact. Resources plays: Our use of the term resources plays refers to tight, shale and coal bed methane oil and gas acreage. The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this presentation Shell, Shell group and Royal Dutch Shell are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words we, us and our are also used to refer to subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or companies. Subsidiaries, Shell subsidiaries and Shell companies as used in this presentation refer to companies over which Royal Dutch Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. Entities and unincorporated arrangements over which Shell has joint control are generally referred to joint ventures and joint operations respectively. Entities over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control are referred to as associates. The term Shell interest is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in a venture, partnership or company, after exclusion of all third-party interest. This presentation contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as anticipate, believe, could, estimate, expect, goals, intend, may, objectives, outlook, plan, probably, project, risks, schedule, seek, should, target, will and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell s 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward looking statements contained in this presentation and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this presentation, [30th June 2016]. Neither Royal Dutch Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation. We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this presentation that United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov.
OVERVIEW REGULATORY ASPECT AND COMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECT CURRENT STATUS AND IMPACT ON FLEET GROUPS. FINANCIAL ASPECT & PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING FOR RETROFITS AND ESTIMATED TIMELINES STRATEGIES TO REDUCE TIMELINES FROM LESSONS LEARNED OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 3
REGULATORY ASPECT BWM Convention The BWM Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 percent of the world s merchant shipping tonnage. BWM Convention Present Condition 51 States> 30 States 34.87%< 35% gross tonnage Peru has acceded to the BWM Convention on 10 th June bringing the number of states party to the convention to 51. They represent 34.87% of world s merchant fleet tonnage. If it is followed by Finland- thought to be well advanced towards ratification- its 0.14% would be sufficient to push the convention over its 35% threshold, based on IMO s end- May tonnage analysis. 4
Compliance schedule Once the BWM Convention enters into force, The compliance schedule for when a ship can only use treatment is shown in below Table 1 Table 2 indicates the dates by which ships discharging ballast water in US waters are required to install a treatment system. 5
Planning for Compliance Understand obligations under the BWM Convention and other national and local regulations depending on the Trade Review current shipboard ballast tank, pumping and piping arrangements Develop a Ballast Water Management Plan Select and install a ballast water treatment system Model Ballast Water Management Plan Develop training for ships staff and ensure they are adequately trained in BWS operations Develop a final Ballast Water Management Plan and submit for approval Survey and certification Understand your obligations under the USCG regulations IMO Type Approval Only Covers Efficacy, USCG Type Approval covers both design and Efficacy. Presently USCG has not type approved any system, but Ships can use Alternate Management System(AMS) for next five years. Testing Under Final Rule differs in Key Areas from IMO G8, 6
Ballast water treatment standards and Processes TREATMENT PROCESS 7
Technological Aspects % Usage of Available Concepts Available ballast Water Systems IMO Approved Ballast Water Systems 8
Chemical Disinfection Types Chlorination Electro-chlorination/Electrolysis/Catalytic AOP (TiO2, hydrogen peroxide) Ozone Benefits Effective disinfection/oxidation agent Advantageous for high flow systems Will likely meet New USCG stringent requirements Plant Foot Print could be smaller/ staggered Disadvantages Cost of carrying chemicals on board Creation of explosive hydrogen gas with electrolysis which need to be Routed safely Ineffective in low salinity and low temperature water (Electro-chlorination) Must neutralize discharge with chemical agents (another chemical to carry) 9
UV Disinfection Description Mercury-vapor lamps encased in quartz sleeves generate light in the germicidal range of the electromagnetic spectrum UV light in this region damages nucleic acids in DNA of microorganisms preventing replication and thereby inactivating the organisms Types: low pressure or medium pressure UV Benefits Kills / inactivates living organisms Does not create toxic compounds or utilize free radicals environmentally neutral (no residual disinfectant) Eliminates handling and storage of toxic chemicals Disadvantages Frequent cleaning of lamp sleeves Electrical consumption is higher for high capacity systems Subject to water quality issues (UVT, turbidity, dissolved organics) Uncertainty of compliance with USCG Due to Bacteria Regrowth 1
TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECT Pretreatment + Disinfection Systems have Advantages over UV Based Systems and are Better Suited for Refit for particular fleet Plant Selection Consideration Document Feedback from the New Build Ships (filtration & electro-chlorination) The review of these existing technologies so far have shown that the best technical and economical system is the combination of filtration & electrochlorination ( For Particular Fleet group) 11
CURRENT STATUS AND IMPACT ON FLEET GROUPS Ship Name Fleet Group Keel Laid Date Last Harmonized Survey Last Refit End Date Tentative Date for last refit Last IOPP Renewal Survey Date Next IOPP Renewal Survey Date Class Socities BWTS Type Remarks Ship A - Ship B - Ship C - 28 May 2002 Jan-14 06-Jun-14 Jan-19 04-Jan-14 29-Jan-19 LRS UV/EC Develop a Fleet wide Ship Specific Project plan Example 12
CURRENT STATUS AND IMPACT ON FLEET GROUPS. For Ships where IOPP Renewal Falls immediately after Conventions Entry In to Force (Example Option1) 13
CURRENT STATUS AND IMPACT ON FLEET GROUPS. For Ships where IOPP Renewal Falls immediately after Conventions Entry In to Force (Example Option 2) 14
FINANCIALS : CAPEX/ OPEX & PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS System A B Details of Model A! B! Annualised Opex 35 50 Equipment Cost xxx yyy Materials ccc ddd Installation 600 500 Project Management Cost 150 150 Interface cost/post Project Cost 100 100 Total Capex/Ship XXX YYY Total Estimated project cost USD XXX M /Ship Cost projections and NPV calculations for life of Ship Bulk procurement opportunity for delivery & price assurance Service network, Financial Status of Supplier, Reputation & Marine Expertise, Guarantees, Get out Clause **None of the systems are fully proven yet** 15
Retrofit Challenges The regulation is coming!!!! 45,000 vessels during 7 year IMO/USCG implementation schedule Average of 17.6 retrofit systems have to be installed per day Many systems will be installed during shipyard periods Extension of yard periods can have serious cost impacts Installation at compliance date means system must work when vessel leaves the dock to avoid non-compliance. With the current experience Reliability of plants is not very promising hence commissioning phase may be longer. Standard shipyard work scope may interfere with BWMS installation Pressure to meet regulatory requirements will limit choice and may increase cost Many chances for delays or problems in the process Shipyard availabilities may have limited room for slippage 16
Estimated Base Time Line For Installation 50 to 56 weeks 17
Procedure 18
BWMS Installation - Planning is Critical Pre-Engineering Most critical time for successful retrofit installations Solicit feedback from operations, engineering and ships crews to create the Ballast Water Management Plan and use the plan s procedures to guide selection and Ensure that each operating mode is addressed Ship Specific Engineering: Timing of this phase is greatly affected by amount of pre-engineering completed Integrate system with ship s drawings and develop the Class submittal packages and Address ship crews specific concerns Changes during retrofit installation would prove costly Submittal to Class Society: All systems require submittal of installation drawings to Class & BWM Plan will require submittal to Flag State IMO Type Approval does not guarantee suitability for specific ships/services Some flag states require specific approval of BWTS Time may increase based upon review comments and incomplete submittals and timing in retrofit bubble Manufacturing Manufacturing times will vary greatly due to market demand and order books Filters and other sub-components may be critical path for system deliveries Fleet agreements can guarantee place in production schedule Installation Lack of pre-engineering or poorly designed work scopes will extend installation periods 19
Strategies To Reduce Timeline Establish a fleet wide project team with experience in capital projects Project Engineer Engineering resources Shipboard crew involvement Installation contractors Develop Fleet agreements/contracts to guarantee place in production schedule. Develop and refine the retrofit processes and engineering toolbox to efficiently handle the upcoming retrofit demands Traditional tape measure engineering and in-place fabrication may need to be replaced by more efficient techniques despite increased upfront costs New techniques and technology for efficiency and time savings Laser Scanning and 3D modeling (During recent Refit As Build Drawings did not completely match with ships Layout) Prefabrication of pipe spools and foundations Identify interferences and critical joints early in the design process Ship visit is critical to identify best available location for BWTS component Experienced partnerships cut down install times and re-work, It is recommended to give project on turnkey basis to Shipyards for retrofit under Manufacturer supervision and Manufacturer responsible for commissioning and After Sales service to ensure better project execution. Do no wait until your compliance date to start the process 20
BWMS Installation 21
Ship BWMS Installation 22
Ship BWMS Installation 23
Ship BWMS Major Components Electrolysis Unit Filter Units Neutraliser 24
BWM: IMPACT OVERVIEW- SUMMARY REGULATORY ASPECT AND COMPLIANCE USCG: 1 St Scheduled docking after 1 st Jan 2016 IMO: Earliest in force could be 1 St Aug 2017?? TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECT Main Consideration - Filtration + Electro-chlorination ( Less Power consumption, piping is smaller, ease of location of units at different places, smaller foot print, USCG compliant) Some ships may have Filtration + UV + Additional technology None of the systems are fully proven ( System A on board 1 Ship, System B on new two ships; System C on two other ships) CURRENT STATUS AND IMPACT ON FLEET GROUPS. FGXX- First affected vessel: Ship A Jan -18 FINANCIAL ASPECT & PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS Total Estimated project cost USD XXX M /Ship ( Bulk procurement opportunity for delivery & price assurance Danger: None of the systems are fully proven yet, Service network, Financial status of Supplier, reputation, Guarantees, get out Clause PLANNING FOR RETROFITS AND ESTIMATED TIMELINES 1 year lead time from system selection till commissioning date STRATEGIES TO REDUCE TIMELINES FROM LESSONS LEARNED Dedicated Project teams for every ship 3D laser scanning of all the ships Developing Fleet Agreements/Contracts Focus on planning and pre-docking preparation at the earliest to reduce time during docking. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Post Refit Trouble shooting, Safety Features, Operational learnings ( Vibration, temperature, ergonomics, ease of operation, Crew Training ) 25
26