The International Maritime Organistion’s timetable for the accelerated phasing out of single hull tankers showed a marked divergence from objectives detailed at the beginning of Marine Environment Policy Committee which met last week in London.

The accelerated phase-out of single hull tankers, agreed at the 46th session of MEPC, having laid to rest the spectre of any splinter groups within the UN agency.

IMO secretary-general William O’Neil as the agreement demonstrated the IMO “is able to justify our claim that we can achieve results”. 

However, in the case of category 2 tankers (oil tankers of 20,000 dwt and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and 30,000 dwt and above carrying other oil), the timetable for the phase-out of a group of tankers built between 1977 and 1980 has slowed significantly.

While a notional 2015 “drop-dead” phase-out date was maintained, the agreement hammered out saw significant relaxations in the phase-out schedule to 2006, when compared with the pink paper introduced at the opening of MEPC. 

Significant revision of the content of the timetable sees:

- a 2003 phase out adopted for category 2 vessels built in 1973 or earlier, where 2003 had been proposed as the phase-out date for ships built before 1977;

- a 2004 phase out for ships built in 1974 and 1975, where the original proposal had slated 2004 for phase out of ships delivered in 1978;

- a 2005 phase out for ships built 1976-77, where the original schedule had envisaged phase out during this year of vessels delivered as recently as 1979.

Subsequently, the schedule comes back into line with original proposals, leading to the proposed “drop-dead” 2015 phase-out date.

Even here, exemptions will be granted to vessels submitted to the newly stringent condition assessment (CAS) scheme, also agreed at MEPC 46, scheduled to affect category 2 tankers from 2010. 

These ships are vessels with some form of tank protection without being technically double hull tankers. 

Flag states will also be responsible for auditing the revised CAS regime is satisfactorily undertaken, although the way this will be achieved has yet to be resolved.