Who’s In Charge Here?

Bureau Veritas has four levels of autonomy, ABS appears to have three (although they talk about a 4-step maturity level), and DNV has five.

For quite a while, underwriters will measure risk by attorney’s fees.

After sitting in on a webinar with a panel of international attorneys and legal academics, I learned about some of the problems that will be faced by owners, operators, insurers, and port state authorities. Some seem solvable in the short run but others, such as clearer regulations by IMO and maritime states/flag states and their port state authorities, can take years to enact and years of legal precedent to clarify.

Admittedly, most of these difficulties will arrive when autonomy reaches levels 3 and 4, and some of these may be worked out in the intervening years, but as with decisions on investing in what fuel, contracts, and policies are in place, the decisions have to be made before a ship even hits the water.

Thoughts…

• Where there is vessel traffic control and/or lane separation, who do authorities contact when there is no one onboard?
• What is the chain of command in case of an accident when there is no Master or crew to hold accountable? Flag state? Owner? The Management Company? The “driver” 2,000 miles away? Currently, authorities will often arrest the Master and possibly some crew members on scene. With autonomy, they no longer would have that leverage.
• Who is the Master when the absentee operators work in 8-hour shifts? Just the one on watch at the time of the accident? What if a situation started on one shift and ran over into the next?
• Some flag states have already stated they will not recognize autonomous ships. In others, their state definition of “ship” or “vessel” would prohibit MASS as the definitions often include mention of crew. This same definition problem arises, as any new international regulation covering MASS would have to span the differing definitions of “ship” and “vessel”.
• Class societies do have some standards for onboard AI equipment and will have to be working towards more standardization of such equipment and their algorithms with the backing of IMO and authorities such as USCG.
• Who will develop, certify, and inspect the shoreside operation?
• The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) provides operating crew standards, and port state authorities require specific crewing sizes. MASS vessels are not in accordance with either of these. They conflict with crew size requirements and put in question the requirement for a “proper lookout by sight and hearing”.
• What should be the qualifications and training of the shoreside operator? Should they have a marine background or can one learn as with a digital game, i.e., simulators?
• In the case of a pollution incident, will the vessel’s mandatory oil pollution coverage (required by many port states) cover MASS?
• For port states to protect themselves from pollution or wreck removal, will ships be required to post a large bond before they can enter the port or even transit territorial waters?
• What if the shore operator is in a country that is not an IMO maritime country and does not have to follow regulations? This might be like another form of Flags of Convenience (FOC).
• What about the future of passenger ships without navigating crews? Will people feel safe on board? It is happening now, but typically on ferry boats that are never out of sight of land. Are cruise passengers ready to sit at the Captain’s Table with HAL 9000 or C-3PO? (probably).

Committees of ship operators, port state authorities, underwriter groups, lenders, naval architects, and shipbuilders, are all meeting to see how MASS fits into their future. Answers will be complex, elaborate, confusing, and a long time coming.

FLOATING WIND TURBINES

Floating wind turbines don’t have the legal entanglements that autonomous vessels have – yet.

Floaters (as floating wind turbines are referred to), are presently recognized as vessels for class purposes and fall under the same regulations as MODUs (Mobile Offshore Drilling Units) and FOFs (Floating Outer continental shelf Facilities). They will be subject to annual, interim, and the five-year special survey. A few specific parts, like tethers (the turbine anchoring system) will only be inspected every five years. As they are unmanned, they are not subject to regulations pertaining to crewing and safety and domestically, they do not need Coast Guard COI’s. If they are legally perceived as “vessels”, they are subject to being registered by their flag state and thereby subject to a maritime mortgage. This is presently in effect in Norway.

Floaters are being installed in deep water areas around the world. They may soon be used in New England, the U.S. west coast, and off the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. Any domestic use may be a lift for GOM fabrication yards with their long experience in building offshore floating structures, anchor systems, and tethers.

One can see that an annual inspection of an offshore array of a 50-unit floating wind farm will be quite an undertaking. DLS Marine has been ahead of the curve, being the first independent marine survey company in the U.S. to be certified by ABS for the use of drones for remote inspections. Since then, we have continued our involvement through our affiliate company DroneUp, doing test drone inspections with Dominion Energy on their first Virginia offshore fixed turbines. We continue to work on software specially for drone turbine inspections and the production of digital reports of the inspections that will satisfy the needs of owners and regulatory bodies.

Legal entanglements regarding floating wind turbines are inevitable. Assuredly, there will be pressure applied by interested parties to alter the definition of a floater away from being classified the same as a vessel in areas where they are legally recognized as such. Also, lenders may start pushing back to maintain a straightforward means of loan security.

Other News

Choosing Fuels

Marine equipment of the future will have to be diversified. When it comes to traditional marine fuels, it has always been “one size fits all” with engines sized for the vessel, and while that is still true, now there is an additional challenge to accommodate the requirements for new fuels as well. Conveniently, LNG and Ammonia carriers can operate on the boil-off from their cargo, so the energy level of the fuel is not as important as with other vessels.

The power density of fuels now must fit the vessel’s service. A low power-to-weight fuel like hydrogen best fits short travel craft like ferries and other harbor vessels. They can refuel frequently through close fueling sites or swapping out tanks. This improves fuel efficiency by avoiding the need for large and heavy fuel tanks which add to overall weight. Power density is also a factor with large ocean service vessels. These vessels must sacrifice cargo capacity to accommodate the requirements of future fuels.

Aside from LNG, there is methanol which has a high power-to-weight ratio and is carried as a liquid. Rolls-Royce/MAN has developed methanol engines currently being installed on a large yacht. They state that there are 70 methanol engines on order. This is preliminary, with visions to produce larger engines for larger ships.

To be kept in mind, whatever fuel is being used in the main engines(s) should also work in the generators. Some of the new fuel engines are being perfected in smaller engines such as generators and have not had enough testing to justify the expense of building bigger engines for that fuel. This hurdle is somewhat avoided in diesel electric vessels.

Here is a reminder of the trade-offs with which owners are dealing: